Re: Netscape package
"NA" == Nelson Abramson <pogtal@erols.com>
"BJ" == Bjorn Johansson <amigafreak@home.se>
BJ> I'm currently sitting with Netscape 4.73, but I know there
BJ> is a newer version, for Intel and many other platforms that
BJ> is. Do anyone know where I can find a newer ppc-version? I
BJ> downloaded 4.73 from www.linuxppc.com some time ago. When I
BJ> used Alien to make it a deb, I recevied some messages about
BJ> missing files. So, I have been suffering from too small
BJ> fonts and probably some other things too which I'm not
BJ> aware of =).
NA> There are apt-get'able Netscape packages; 4.08-4.75. At
NA> the very least you can get rid of the app errors :-)
Unfortunately, that's only sort of true. The important package to
look at is the communicator-smotif-<version> package, which is
architecture-dependent. The newest version for Debian PowerPC (in
woody) is communicator-smotif-47. That's version 4.7 -- as in
4.70 -- dated April 10, 2000.
Communicator was apparently being built by the LinuxPPC folks from
Netscape source and converted (by Dan?) to Debian packages; the
last update from LinuxPPC was 4.73, and while they've been
promising newer versions (including versions with 128-bit
encryption) for months, I haven't seen any movement.
I currently have an aliened Communicator 4.73 RPM installed, with
the Debian netscape-base-4 and netscape-base-47 packages (which
supply some nice ``extras'', such as netscape-remote, along with
some basic configuration files, Xresources, etc.). I don't see
errors like the ones Bjorn alluded to, but I wouldn't guarantee I
have the greatest browsing experience out there, either.
I'm really looking forward to a stable Mozilla....
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: