Bug#524280: Display broken beyond recognition after upgrade to 1:6.12.2-1

[Alex Deucher]

2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski <jp at jp.pl.eu.org>:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:46:47PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 08:55 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
>
>>> I'll try to upgrade again to current unstable version and try packages
>>> I've built earlier (6.9.0, 6.11.0) - this time remembering always to
>>> reboot after installation.
>
>>Sounds like a good plan; even better if you could try to always
>>up/downgrade as few packages at a time as possible. Also, it might be
>>useful if you could record Xorg.0.log files and kernel output for each
>>case.
>
> Meanwhile, I upgraded kernel to 2.6.29, which changed nothing in
> behaviour of Xorg (both version from unstable distribution and
> downgraded to versions from testing)
>
>
> To be able to change as few packages as possible, at first I stayed at
> working Xorg from testing and changed only xserver-xorg-video-radeon.
>
>
> Basically only version 6.9.0 works (both - in X from testing and from
> unstable). Unfortunately I don't have access to source package of 6.10
> version of radeon driver.
>

You can grab source packages from cgit:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-ati/

>
> I've installed Debian/testing on new VirtualBox machine to build
> packages.
>
> In all packages with version higher than 6.9.0, I had to manually
> change versioned build-dependency on 'xserver-xorg-dev' before
> building, because higher version was theoretically required.
>
> 1) 6.12.2
> (binary package built from unstable distribution source package)
> Display corrupted.
>
> 2) 6.9.0
> (binary package installed directly from testing repo)
> Correct image. Works perfectly.
>
> 3) 6.11.0
> (binary package built from Brice's source packages)
> Display corrupted.
>
> 4) 6.10.99.0
> (binary package built from Brice's source packages)
> Display corrupted.
>
> 5) 6.9.0
> (binary package built, to verify correctness of my building process,
> from source packages from testing repo)
> Correct image. Works perfectly.
>

Any chance you could try 6.10.0 from the tarballs above and then use
git bisect to track down what commit broke this?
It's easy to do and would be a big help.  I can walk you through if need be.

Alex