Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo

Close

#568 Nedit fails to open in Ubuntu 6.10

closed-duplicate
nobody
None
5
2006-11-20
2006-11-19
Steve K
No

I just installed Nedit 1:5.5-1-lubuntu1 on Ubuntu 6.10 (upgraded from 6.06). My Ubuntu installation is all defaults with the Gnome desktop environment.

When I start Nedit from the shell or the Gnome 'run application' dialog, nothing seems to happen. In the shell, the following appears:

X Errorr of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)
Major opcode of failed request: 70 (X_PolyFillRectangle)
Serial number of failed request: 310
Current serial number in output stream: 320

I thought installing the OpenMotif and LessTif libraries might be necessary, but this made no difference, nor did removing and re-installing Nedit afterward.

I will be happy to try or check anything else that may be of value. Contact steve10k at yahoo etc.

Discussion

  • Thorsten Haude
    Thorsten Haude
    2006-11-20

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=119143
    Originator: NO

    Copied from Eddy's comment on #1547211:

    This appears to be a duplicate of bug #1030192, caused by
    the 32-bit visual. We should have a workaround in CVS.

    For now, you can try three things:
    * nedit -xrm '*visualID: default'
    * XLIB_SKIP_ARGB_VISUALS=1 nedit
    * compile nedit from the latest CVS sources

     
  • Thorsten Haude
    Thorsten Haude
    2006-11-20

    • status: open --> closed-duplicate
     
  • neognomic
    neognomic
    2007-02-16

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=123632
    Originator: NO

    I have apparently the same problem with Mandriva 2007.0.
    $> nedit
    [snip]
    X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)
    Major opcode of failed request: 70 (X_PolyFillRectangle)
    Serial number of failed request: 343
    Current serial number in output stream: 353
    ---

    It also generates a lot of repeated lines of complaints[snipped part] about not being able to use utf-8.

    I obtained the nedit 32-bit binary from s'forge(thank you!) and it runs A-OK.

    Is this a lesstif related problem?
    Would the same issue occur with a build against openmotif 2.2? How about with openmotif 2.3?

    I have filed a bug report at qa.mandriva.com: Bug #28760. Developers' input to resolve this would be most appreciated.
    http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28760

    Thanks!

    FYI:
    The nedit that is broken was compiled for 64-bit OS. System info, etc. is in the qa.mandriva.com bug report.

     
  • Thorsten Haude
    Thorsten Haude
    2007-02-16

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=119143
    Originator: NO

    From the MDK bug report:
    >I am not sure if the nedit dev's will act on it. ...

    Eddy fixed this a while ago, and we have to reports of problems with the fix (or the workaround). Could someone please add this to the MDK report? I don't want to create yet another account for a tracker I'll never use again.

     
  • neognomic
    neognomic
    2007-02-28

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=123632
    Originator: NO

    I added the info.

    I doubt that MDV will use CVS for a released binary but one never knows ... maybe.
    Thanks for responding.

     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=474896
    Originator: NO

    I confirmed we have this problem in MDV and also built an updated package based on today's CVS, and that does indeed resolve the problem.

    I'm not sure the official nedit packager would want to go to a CVS package, however, so is this a fix that could easily be isolated and backported to nedit 5.5?

    Thanks.

     
  • Eddy De Greef
    Eddy De Greef
    2007-03-01

    Patch with a workaround for the ARGB visuals problem

     
    Attachments
  • Eddy De Greef
    Eddy De Greef
    2007-03-01

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=73597
    Originator: NO

    I've attached a patch that should apply cleanly to the 5.5 source code. I haven't tested it on 5.5, but I'm pretty sure that it's ok.
    File Added: patch.argb

     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=474896
    Originator: NO

    actually it turns out one of our contributors had already figured out what needed patching and done the necessary work in our SVN system, but forgot to actually submit the package to be built. so we just did that and now we have a working 5.5. sorry to cause you to do unnecessary work!