Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 15:07, James Strandboge a écrit : > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 15:03, Michael Bennett Cohn wrote: > > With more help from friends at #debian, I actually managed to get rid of the offending XFree86 files. I then finished the backport install according to James' instructions. > > > > In general, it seems to be working. But I have a few concerns: > > > > 1) I think that James and whoever is promoting his backport should have the explanation > > > and instructions he gave me earlier in this thread clearly displayed on the relevant web pages. > > > The average woody user does not subscribe to this list. > > > The main way I advertised the backport was through this list and > debianplanet.org. Both of those have these instructions. As for > others, I would like them to have proper instructions, but there isn't > much I can do. That leads us to what I told you, that we should "open the debate". I'm sorry, I didn't have the time yet to create you an account and to introduce you to the way it works. Be patient, please. [...] > > 3) Gnome2.2 runs much slower than the old Gnome, on the same box. I'm hoping that this > > > ponderousness is a feature of Gnome itself and not related to the backport. > > > This is true in general for gnome2.2, especially with the RENDER > extension turned on (anti-aliased text). I do not agree. All the GNOME 2.2 installations I have seen so far are really faster and more responsive than their previous GNOME 1.x version on the same hardware. I've been told, however, that RedHat's version was really lightning fast. How could this be? How could you deactivate the RENDER extension? Is it possible at all? > > 6) ...which leads to the more general question: if I'm running the backport of Gnome2.2 on a > > > woody system, how much trouble can i expect to run into when using "gnome-compatible" packages > > > that were not a part of the backport? Obviously, a package that is just plain a part of the old > > > gnome, and has no place in 2.2, shouldn't be expected to work without problems in 2.2. But take > > > something like Sawfish. Officially, it's not part of gnome, right? And yet, as a woody user, I > > > don't have access to the most recent version of it (I think). So, while it should technically work, > > > packages like woody's Sawfish, that are made to be sympatico with gnome, are probably expecting > > > to find the old version of gnome. Is this a problem? How does the end-user with woody and the > > > backport know which woody-gnome packages are going to get along with the backport? > > > > I backported sawfish-- it works fine with gnome2.2. As for gnome1.4 > packages, they should be fine since the libraries they depend on can be > installed in parallel. In practice, two rather large gnome1.4 apps-- > gnucash 1.8 and evolution 1.2 worked fine under the backport. And Galeon still does. No plans to backport it also "officially"? I still have the problem with Acrobat Reader and Flash Player as plugins, though. I backported myself Mozilla 1.4 and Galeon 1.3.7 (still the same problems). -- Jérôme Warnier <jwarnier@beeznest.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=