Re: Q:xfsft binary on debian system
Hi Stephen J. Carpenter; unless Mutt is confused, you wrote:
>
> anyway... have you downloaded it? is it glibc or libc5?
Yup, I did download it and it is compiled on a RH5.1 machine against glibc.
> If it is compiled for linux it SHOULD work (of course there are always those
> situations where things are setup or compiled weird)...
> I see NO reason why it wouldn't work.
>
> The ONLY things AFAIK that dpkg and debina policy garauntees will NOT be
> destroyed without your permission are "conffiles" binary executables are
> NOT conffiles...
> so the next tim,e you install xbase it will write over xfs..whgether it
> is new or not.
>
> Just put it in /usr/local/bin and it will be safe there...
> copy the xfs file from /etc/init.d to xfsft and edit it to use
> your new binary (and disable the xfs one)
> then use update-rc.d xfsft defaults
> to install the sym links and bring it up on boot...beyond that just configure
> its fonts et al.
> Note: I have never used xfsft, but I have used xfstt and xfs ...both work
> well enough for my needs.
> The real reason I packaged xfstt and not xfsft originally was that it is based
> so tightly on XF86 source...I would have had to split out the source tree for
> xfs myself...thats a pain (esp if xfsft gets a patch...or if xfs gets a
> differnt fix/patch)...
Thank you for the step-by-step procedure. I am planning on trying that this
coming weekend. If you want an update I will post my experience here.
> Not to mention xbase has xfs built in...it was a mess,....
> maybe once X is broken up a bit (a goal of the X Strike Force ) it
> will be easier to package xfsft
>
> -Steve
Yes, I've read about that. It is a big project esp. since the X is coming out
every so often. And maybe it can be shown that xfstt is a better solution
anyways.
Again, thank you much
damir
Reply to: