Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:52:50PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
> John,
>
> I installed straight to testing (but using a stable netinstall CD) a
> couple months ago. When gnome2 into was released into it from unstable a
> couple weeks ago I ran into similar issues. I am looking forward to
> watching this thread to see what the expert insight to this is. My
> opinion is that Gnome2 'works' but it doesn't 'work right'. Isn't that
> what testing is for though?
That is what I thought, too, but Mr. Pytel indicates that testing is
less stable than unstable . . . why, he didn't say, only that "that
is what you get for running testing".
> To test for bugs that aren't critical and
> prepare for the next stable version that does 'work right'. There are
> gnome2 version packages that are still in held up in unstable that I
> think maybe should have held up the whole gnome2 upgrade, but I don't
> know that much about the details to make this statment as anything more
> than a personal opinion.
It does seem as if a mistake has been made here, by putting a partial
set into testing. It doesn't seem likely that testing can be done
properly with only a partial set.
> Here is a link about ideas for moving debian to gnome2, but I didn't get
> a good feeling of resolution:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=154950
Thank you. I'll read through this.
> I also get the error message from the gnome settings daemon. I think
> it's due to nautilus being gnome and not the gnome2 version. The gnome2
> version of nautilus seems to be held back in unstable with some
> automated build errors.
Ah! That answers that question. Thank you.
> I also have some interestingly scaled and rendered fonts in some
> applications. On this page
> (http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/debian/testing/2003/05/msg00058.html)
> there is mention of the local affecting fonts. I should check my local.
> I dont remember which I chose, other than knowing it wasn't 'C'.
This has been a very useful reply. Thank you! My locale is indeed C.
I'll read through the information at this link, as well.
Thanks,
John S.
Reply to: