From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ratatosk.utfors.se ([195.58.103.123]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <24865>; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:32:59 -0400 Received: from nowhere (md469203b.utfors.se) by ratatosk.utfors.se (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FS500309PSDPA@ratatosk.utfors.se> for sam-fans@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:09:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 25170 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:07:54 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:07:54 -0500 From: Daniel Neri Subject: Re: sam-9libs vs. Linux (RH 6.0) In-reply-to: "James A. Robinson"'s message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:28:56 -0500" To: jim.robinson@stanford.edu Cc: Jim Crigler , sam-fans@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu Message-id: <87wvmm8wpx.fsf@nowhere.mayonnaise.net> Organization: mayonnaise.net -- a safe european home MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 References: <200003281828.KAA18140@highwire.stanford.edu> "James A. Robinson" writes: > I seem to recall it was a libXg problem. Someone explained that part of > the code expects the depth to be have some properties that don't apply > to 24bit depth (or, I guess, 32bit). I'm sorry that I don't remember > the details. FWIW, sam(term) works fine for me at 24bit depth (running on OpenBSD/i386 and XFree86 3.3.5). Though this is "plain sam", not based on 9libs. Best wishes, /Daniel -- Daniel Neri dne@mayonnaise.net