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

Re: testing 2.2 -> 3.1 transition

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:43:30AM +0100, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> Am Mit, 2003-11-05 um 09.04 schrieb Ross Boylan:
> > I see that parts of KDE 3.1 have finally made it into testing.  I have
> > a testing system running KDE 2.2 (standard Debiain packages).
> > 
> > I think some of the miscellaneous issues (e.g., libsensors) may be
> > holding things up right now, but, aside from that, is it safe to just
> > upgrade or dist-upgrade?  It looks as if I might end up with a mix of
> > 2.2 and 3.1, for example the core desktop at 3.1 but apps like KWord
> > at 2.2.
> Hi Ross
> I don't consider it safe, as the kde does not work anymore after a
> dist-upgrade on testing.
> This is exaclty because of the libsensors-1debian1 problem. Look into
> the archive. Somebody had posted a URL to a Wiki where you can download
> that missing package.

I'm aware of the libsensors problem and I'm surprised you were able to
install without it.  My question was directed at other issues that
might lie beyond that, however.

> After installing it, you get a working kde 3.1 environement. But I still
> have troubles with missing fonts in the konsole.

I have font troubles that won't quit, since I built a KDE 3 from
scratch (not debianized) and installed it in an alternate directory.
The reasons for them remain obscure; it is not directly bug 
214150 (mentioned in the other message) since it was not a Debian
install.  Both my 2.2 and 3.1 installs have font problems, though in
different ways....  There are a lot of fonts that don't display at

I know the naming convention for fonts in the underlying Qt changed
between these versions from foundry-family to family [foundry], but
since the new Qt is supposed to understand both styles I don't think
that alone can explain it.

Another box that had the Debian sid KDE 3.1 packages from the start is
much better, though it still has some weirdness (e.g., the default
Konsole font is horrible).

> -Benoit-

Reply to: