Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: xfonts-utils missing?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thank you Jaime for the assurance.
There are two other flys in the ointment, to wit:
a) ndiswrapper (needed for the Broadcom BCM4318 Wireless LAN Controller
b) fglrx-driver (needed for the ATI video chip
On the most recent up-date, I had to compile the ndiswrapper from source
because the kernel also was updated. I have learned (learnt - UK :-)
that compiling drivers works easily with the header files. I had no
success trying with the full kernel source. (not something I do everyday).
On a previous up-date xorg must have been involved, because in this most
recent up-date, the fglrx-driver continued to work. Now, I see there is
a major revision to xorg which seems to include free drivers (dfsg) for
the ATI chip. There is a warning that the free drivers do not provide 3D
(what ever that is). So, I may not need to compile a new fglrx-driver
from the ATI sources anyhow.
Well, we shall see. There is another hour or so of download before the
fun starts. fgd.
Jaime Ochoa Malagón wrote:
> seems you don't need the glint module, just install the other
> dependences and ignore the glint
>
> On 4/17/06, Fielder George Dowding <fgdowding@iceworm-enterprises.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I am having a similar problem updating my amd64 laptop (HP Pavilion
> zv600 series (zv6201cl) with the ATI Radeon XPRESS 200M 5955 (PCIE)
> video chip on-board.
>
> I updated unstable from ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ using dselect. So now
> I am in "dselect hell" because "xserver-xorg-video-glint does not appear
> to be available".
>
> I will be trying again tomorrow. I sure hope things get ironed out. fgd.
>
> René van Bevern wrote:
>
>>"Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullrich@loop.de> writes:
>
>>Hello,
>
>
>
>>>Am Montag, 17. April 2006 11:36 schrieb Anders Ellenshøj Andersen:
>
>
>>>>On Monday 17 April 2006 11:30, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I think it is correct, since if I have understood it correctly, amd64 is
>>>>now part of unstable. As far as I can tell, aptitute automagically calls up
>>>>the amd64 packages and not x86 packages.
>
>>>Hmm, if you are right, Anders, then there would have been a massive change in
>>>debian-amd64.
>
>
>>And yes, he is right. AMD64 is now part on the official mirrors for
>>unstable and packages start propagating to testing also.
>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00014.html
>
>
>
>>>Can somebody explain the status of debian-amd64 and what are the correct
>>>entries in sources.list ?
>
>
>>The correct entries for sources.list for unstable are (add contrib and
>>non-free to your liking).
>
>>deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ unstable main
>>deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ unstable main
>
>>About your concerns if aptitude will automatically grab AMD64 packages
>>or if grabs the i386 ones, just try dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH
>>and look if it sais "amd64" or "i386".
>
>>Note that for Sarge, you continue to use your old entries in
>>sources.list.
>
>> René
>
>
> --
> Fielder George Dowding, Chief Iceworm .^. Debian/GNU Linux
> dba Iceworm Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska /v\ "etch" Testing
> Since 1976 - Over 25 Years of Service. /( )\ User Number 269482
> ^^-^^ "irad" 301256
- --
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
> --
> Engañarse por amor es el engaño más terrible;
> es una pérdida eterna para la que no hay compensación
> ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad.
> Kierkegaard
> Jaime Ochoa Malagón
> Integrated Technology
> Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
- --
Fielder George Dowding, Chief Iceworm .^. Debian/GNU Linux
dba Iceworm Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska /v\ "etch" Testing
Since 1976 - Over 25 Years of Service. /( )\ User Number 269482
^^-^^ "irad" 301256
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFERLKx2kl99FX0AIkRAhANAJ9SRdYRW+f7nzuNZjbc9LCWXmGEhgCgk/un
kMpBrEnnEXeIpsdMi8VQz9U=
=WHoW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: