Re: Helix GNOME Updates?
"SB" == Sergio Brandano <sb@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes:
SB> Also gnome-panel is being delayed. It is the last bit of
SB> that new GNOME which appeared in Debian 2.2 for the Intel
SB> platform but did not get to appear for PPC.
The GNOME stuff is really messed up on PPC. I spent an entire day
downloading source and building packages, and I'm still not sure I
have everything. (I wanted the new gnome-panel, too.)
>From what I can tell, the main problem is that many of the key
source packages (or whatever we call them) don't have
Build-Depends lines, which means that the build daemon can't build
the packages unless it just happens to have all of the
build-dependencies installed. (And that's very unlikely.) Just
to add insult to injury, some of these packages don't even have
useful warnings produced by their configure scripts, making it all
the more difficult to figure out what obscure development package
you need to get them to build.
By diligent work, you can overcome those problems. The only
problem I had that I couldn't work around by figuring out
dependencies was libglade. As of this writing (and for a couple
of weeks), the current version of libglade (0.13) cannot be
compiled *anywhere*. The Intel libglade packages that exist were
built with an older version of bonobo. That version of bonobo has
been replaced with a new one (0.17), and libglade 0.13 cannot be
built with that version of bonobo. The libglade code in the GNOME
CVS repository has been patched to allow it to build properly, but
that code hasn't been released yet, so there are no new Debian
packages.
If you really want to build libglade, you could download the
current libglade source from Debian, download the current source
from the GNOME CVS and tar it up, and then update the Debian
package using uupdate.
You could also build libglade outside of the Debian packaging
system (which may cause you headaches later). And it's possible
that the Helix GNOME packages have already been updated.
***********************************
**** Warning! Warning! Warning!****
***********************************
Do *not* rush to replace gnomecc (the GNOME Control Center). The
current version in woody is seriously beta. Not only does it not
work properly, but it's also missing functionality the older
versions had. There is no stable version later than 1.0.51
available from Debian for PowerPC. (Helix has 1.2.2, however.)
***********************************
SB> Furthermor, gnome-print is being labeled as obsolete; as if
SB> it were discontinued.
If you do `apt-get install gnome-print', apt will happily tell you
that gnome-print has been replaced with libgnomeprint6.
Unfortunately, libgnomeprint6 is one of those packages without a
Build-Depends. You can get the source and build it, though.
SB> Since I am in the topic, I am having serious difficulties
SB> in reading pdf files; are there any chances to have Adobe
SB> AcrobatReader for PPC?
As much as I'd love to see a native version of Acrobat Reader, I
suspect the chances of that are roughly the same as a snowball's
chance in hell. Any port would have to come from Adobe, and given
that they already have a version that runs on Linux (after all,
Linux == x86, right?), I'd be surprised to see them bother. The
PPC Linux market is extremely small, and I doubt that Adobe really
cares. (The impression I've gotten over the last few years is
that they're not all that excited about the Mac market anymore,
either.)
We have four machines, one of which is an x86 system, and I
remotely display Acrobat Reader when I need it. Otherwise, I use
gv (with the non-free gs-aladdin as the backend) or xpdf (the
xpdf-i version, which has encryption).
CMC
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space,
a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly c@eskimo.com SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Reply to: