Comment 172 for bug 185311

Hello Bryce,

this is (again) the transcript from the proprietary CAD Application I
can not use anymore:

ic: ../../src/xcb_lock.c:77: _XGetXCBBuffer: Assertion `((int)
((xcb_req) - (dpy->request)) >= 0)' failed.
Aborted

Attached is the complete strace -f transcript.

Hope this helps.

Let me know if there is anything else I can do to support you.

Thanks

Christian

Bryce Harrington wrote:
> The last several comments is doing nothing at all to help the case of
> those wishing to revert libx11. Still no data about *specific* apps
> with *specific* problems (backtraces or at least stderr msgs) are NOT
> being posted to this bug report. If problems are so pervasive, then I
> would expect it to be a simple matter to reproduce and post some factual
> details (screenshots, error logs, *something*). Simply ranting more
> loudly and being insulting doesn't help - just makes me question all the
> more if there actually are any facts behind the assertions. I'll give
> it a few more weeks but without solid evidence will close this as
> wontfix.
>
> Ripping out xcb-enabled libx11 from hardy would be a HUGE amount of work
> that will impact a number of people, and not something I'm willing to
> entertain without unquestionably clear, detailed benefits that I can
> show to Canonical management and those people who will be affected by
> this and that will need to sign off on it. Many won't care so much
> about proprietary software to begin with, so convincing them to make
> changes simply to improve proprietary software is going to be hard to
> justify to begin with. Non-CoC comments like "remove the XCB
> infection!", "Does no one at Canonical CARE?" etc. just serve to harden
> opinions against making any further changes, and invest any further time
> beyond the good deal we've put in already.
>
>