[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Docking Station and KDE?



The only light that I can shed on this is that it works OK on my machine. I 
downloaded direct from the Creatures website rather than using the CD, but 
the program updates itself when you run it anyway so that won't be the reason.

I am using an upto-date Potato with the addition of the KDE packages from KDE 
net. About the only other non-Potato software that I have is Python version 
2.0.1.

There is a Linux Docking Station forum and also a technical FAQ accessible 
from http://ds.creatures.net/help.pl .

David

On Saturday 04 August 2001 12:25 pm, John Gay wrote:
> I've got a strange problem here.
>
> I got the Creatures Docking Station from Linux Format magazine. I installed
> it on my system, which is Progeny updated with Ivan's KDE2.1 from
> kde.debian.net. This worked fine. I installed it on my daughters PC, which
> is similarly set-up, but it fails with the following error:
>
> Welcome to Docking Station!
> Gdk-ERROR **: BadRequest (invalid request code or no such operation)
>   serial 17 error_code 1 request_code 145 minor_code 16
>
> The only difference in setup between my daughters PC and mine is mine has
> been constantly updated from Progeny's BETA testing days and hers was
> installed from the boxed set.
>
> I recently bought 5 PC's for a school project I'm working on. I installed
> these with the Progeny boxed set including the KDE2.0 that is included.
> When I installed Docking Station on this, it worked fine, but konqueror
> fails to render html, this was an old bug. I did an apt-get install
> task-kde to update the KDE packages, but this broke KDE. I am currently
> using dselect to try to fix this, but I decided to try Docking Station and
> it is now broke too. I've tried to find any packages relating to gdk, but
> these are all the latest on my daughters PC. Can anyone shed any more light
> on this, as my Daughter is raging that Creatures works on my system but not
> hers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 	John Gay



Reply to: