Re: conky deb?
cga2000 <cga2000@optonline.net>:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 10:50:25PM EST, s. keeling wrote:
> > Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de>:
> > > Am 2006-11-16 19:52:29, schrieb cga2000:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:56:44AM EST, cga2000 wrote:
> > > > > Does anyone know if a sarge-compatible .deb of conky is available
> > > > > anywhere?
> > > >
> > > > There isn't. Stuff in sarge is just too ancient to support this
> > > > newcomer.
> > >
> > > deb-src ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian sid main
> > > [big snip]
> >
> > E: Build-Depends dependency for conky cannot be satisfied \
> > because the package libxdamage-dev cannot be found
> >
> > Okay, then:
> >
> > (100) heretic [root] /root_ apt-get -b source conky
> > [schnip]
> > Build command 'cd conky-1.4.4 && dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc' failed.
> > E: Child process failed
>
> When building from source you can configure conky w/ xdamage disabled ..
>
> But then you'll run into further dependencies issued that mean a whole
> bunch of sarge stuff needs to be upgraded ..
>
> Not worth it with etch going stable shortly .. well that's what I think.
>
> See if a recent version of conky installs on top of etch without any
Disclaimer, I'm not after conky. Michelle Konzack says, even when
running stable someone who wants conky it can get it. I was just
testing Michelle's hypothesis, and trying to learn something at the
same time (which I think I am, thanks). I look forward to Michelle's
reply.
I have found it seldom necessary to build from source. I'm spoiled
rotten by apt-get and friends, and I seldom see the need for bleeding
edge features.
Things like chkrootkit, yes, I run the latest. My arteries aren't
that hard! :-)
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.
Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html
Reply to: