Re: The nature of testing and where can others help (Was Re: HowTo for Gnome2??)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:59:18PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:40:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: The components that have so far been upgraded were upgraded entirely automatically. The dependencies within the GNOME 2 packages are simply not strict enough to prevent (say) gnome-panel being installed into testing with an older gnome-control-center Would this not constitute a bug? Possibly. I'm not entirely sure. It's a bit late now anyway, so I'd rather worry about how to get the rest of GNOME 2 into testing ... http://lists.debian.org/debian-release-0306/msg8.html (and it's possible that they can't be, which is why releases aren't automatic either ...). I find it hard to believe that the dependancies for the Gnome packages couldn't have been set to stop this from happening. It's difficult to express package A doesn't need package B, but will break package B less than such-and-such-a-version in a way that the testing scripts will notice. Testing generally makes sure that both A and B are installable, but if there isn't a dependency relationship between them but only a conflict it won't check that they're simultaneously installable. I suppose that all the packages gnome-core depends on could have had a dependency back onto gnome-core, which would probably have done the trick. It's overkill and would impede people trying to use just bits of GNOME, though. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The nature of testing and where can others help (Was Re: HowTo for Gnome2??)
Hi. Your post was very very long; so I hope you won't mind that I've only got time to reply to parts of it, sorry. On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:06:37 -0600 Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ snip ] Unfortunatly for a Debian neophyte like myself your descriptions seem to be contrary on some points to the statements describing the packages found here: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages. I may be misunderstanding the last paragraph of your post, but the phrase choosing one of these options also brings you the bonus that you'll get security updates more quickly as testing is the last place for security updates to appear seems quite opposite of the statement from the packages web page 'unstable' is also not supported by the security team. No, it's not really the *opposite* of saying that. The security team is responsible for making sure that software changes that were necessitated by discovered security vulnerabilities get backported to stable (and some older versions as well). The security team doesn't support unstable; but they don't really need to, because the versions in unstable are coming straight from the upstream developers and Debian package maintainers. In other words, people continually working on updating the packages in unstable, and that provides a route for security updates to get in. But in general, nobody is working on updating the packages in stable anymore -- it's released -- so there's a need for an entity like the security team to make sure that security updates get into the stable packages. So if you're running unstable, you usually get security updates fairly promptly, because the upstream developers and/or Debian package maintainers typically get the security updates in promptly. If you're running stable, then the security team is working to update packages in stable. But if you're running testing, you're entirely dependent on how quickly the updated package in unstable can make it into testing, which may not be so fast. The packages page does say that testing does not get timely security updates, it does not say it is the last place for security updates after unstable and unofficial packages. You may be speaking from experiance, implying that the unofficial packages found through apt-get.org or the unstable packages are more likely to have security patches applied than testing because developers would be activly updating these packages whereas packages in testing have to pass the automated processes criteria, Exactly. but the conclusion is not directly stated or guarenteed anywhere. Perhaps the packages page on the debian web site No, I don't know that it is stated anywhere; but it's an obvious conclusion of the way in which testing is built. See http://www.debian.org/devel/testing It's an automated distribution: it can't have anything that didn't filter down to it from unstable, so logically it gets changes (such as security updates) more slowly than stable does. Perhaps the packages page on the debian web site should be re-worded to reflect your observations on the nature of testing. Maybe. It was certainly a while that I'd been running testing (then, woody) before I realized that the notion I'd had -- that testing was some sort of intermediate place between stable and unstable, more robust than unstable but more current (in terms of software) than stable -- was wrong, or at least oversimplified. [ snip ] Since we have already drifted OT a bit towards what testing is or should be, it seems to me that the state of gnome2 can be a learning experiance if we let it. It can help us determine what packages should be grouped together as gnome2 so that when it hits stable if a security update changes some core gnome2 components to the level that they no longer play well without upgrading other gnome2 tools, the depenancies can be fixed now (while in testing and unstable) so they are already in place (in the future stable) to not allow an update to one portion without updating all interrelated systems. My understanding is that this is normally done, through the appropriate setting of dependencies, and through the use of metapackages. Those metapackages for GNOME2 aren't yet present in testing, because not all the GNOME2 infrastructure has made it down yet. When it does, I'm sure that stuff will appear. So I think that what you're suggesting is the way that it already works. I am trying to understand the auto-build process that moves packages from unstable to testing. http://www.debian.org/devel/testing It seems that if the packages were defined so that gnome2 desktop depended on nautilus2, gnome-control-center2 and gnome-terminal (this list is not complete), then people couldn't dist-upgrade to testing to try gnome2 out untill it was ready to go into testing. Right, and that's a reason why a GNOME2 metapackage (like gnome2-desktop)
Re: The nature of testing and where can others help (Was Re: HowTo for Gnome2??)
Oops. On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:02:23 -0400 Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I don't know that it is stated anywhere; but it's an obvious conclusion of the way in which testing is built. See http://www.debian.org/devel/testing It's an automated distribution: it can't have anything that didn't filter down to it from unstable, so logically it gets changes (such as security updates) more slowly than stable does. That should have read ...more slowly than *unstable* does. Dang. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:13:24PM -0500, Todd Pytel wrote: I backed up my sources.list, OK . . . changed it to unstable, It? Did you mean the APT::Default-Release value? did an apt-get update, apt-get install gnome-core, OK. and then restored the old sources.list. There isn't a command line option for specifying this? I thought that was what -t, --target-release and --default-release were for? Works fine. Nautilus 2 is worlds faster than the original, fonts are nice, everything is anti-aliased, blah, blah, blah... OK. If you're absolutely opposed to any unstable packages, then I guess you're screwed. That's what you get for running testing. What, are you saying that I'm less likely to get screwed by running experimental, than testing? I didn't know that. Why? John S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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=nobug=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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 08:10:37 -0600 John W. M. Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:13:24PM -0500, Todd Pytel wrote: I backed up my sources.list, OK . . . changed it to unstable, It? Did you mean the APT::Default-Release value? I guess so - I don't know the proper Debian terminology. I switched testing for unstable did an apt-get update, apt-get install gnome-core, OK. and then restored the old sources.list. There isn't a command line option for specifying this? I thought that was what -t, --target-release and --default-release were for? Perhaps. I didn't say that this was the only way to do it. Works fine. Nautilus 2 is worlds faster than the original, fonts are nice, everything is anti-aliased, blah, blah, blah... OK. If you're absolutely opposed to any unstable packages, then I guess you're screwed. That's what you get for running testing. What, are you saying that I'm less likely to get screwed by running experimental, than testing? I didn't know that. Why? No, what I'm saying is that if you run testing, you can't always expect that packages will play well together. It's an automated distribution, so you get strange results when one package is held up by a dependency or unstable has switched to a new major version. In this case, that means either 1) putting a hold on the GNOME packages until all of them are in testing, or 2) getting the other core GNOME 2 packages from unstable. If you just moved to testing in the last 2 weeks, then it's probably too late for #1, since some 1.4 packages are already out of your package lists. That leaves #2. That's life in Testing. GNOME 2 may be the first time you've hit odd release problems like this, but it will probably not be your last. --Todd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 08:10:37 -0600 John W. M. Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're absolutely opposed to any unstable packages, then I guess you're screwed. That's what you get for running testing. What, are you saying that I'm less likely to get screwed by running experimental, than testing? I didn't know that. Why? I wouldn't say you're less likely to get screwed by running experimental. I'd say that you're *much* less likely to get screwed by running a GNOME2 backport to woody, and generally less likely to get screwed by running sid. In general, up until the pre-release package freeze on testing, it's a bad idea to think of testing as an intact version of Debian. I tend to think of testing as kind of like a big cardboard box in which the different elements of the upcoming release are being placed, continually being replaced by new versions as they become available (according to the rules for stuff moving from unstable to testing). At any given point, up until the time of release, it's possible for stuff that will need to be in that box at release-time to not be there yet; and it's possible for some of the stuff in that box to not get along well with other stuff in that box. In general, people try to avoid stuff going into testing that will cause problems for people who track it closely; but it still happens sometimes. A number of GNOME2 packages apparently haven't made it down into testing yet. Thus, any GNOME2 installation drawn from testing is bound to be incomplete, and have problems. That's the nature of testing; stuff like that happens. And when people tracking testing experience problems with GNOME2 at this point, that's not a problem with GNOME2 or testing; the problem is with the expectation that GNOME2 in sarge should necessarily work. Put another way, it's no more a problem with testing than the fact that a car halfway down an assembly line doesn't work is a problem with the car; instead, the problem is with the expectation that a car at that stage of assembly *should* work. So what to do? If all you really want is GNOME2, then your best option is running woody + a backport of GNOME2 to woody (see www.apt-get.org). If you need official packages, then your best bet is to bite the bullet and run sid. Choosing one of these options also brings you the bonus that you'll get security updates more quickly, as testing is the last place for security updates to appear (since testing won't see security updates to packages until the updated versions are put into sid and work through the process of packages moving from sid to testing). -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:00:13 +0200, Michael Heironimus wrote: Is anybody keeping score on how many different and unrelated font configuration systems we have now? Ermm... XF86Config... and fontconfig. What else? 2) The Gnome Settings Daemon was not installed, and it repeatedly complains about that lack. I can't find any package that indicates that it might contain this semi-mythical daemon. I think that's because you need the GNOME Control Center, and that hasn't made it in to testing yet. Core pieces of GNOME2 haven't been moved from unstable to testing, while other pieces have. You're thinking correctly. This semi-mythical daemon lives in gnome-control-center. IMO this package should be a dependency of gnome-session. Otherwise fools like myself forget installing it... I'm not sure that GNOME 1 and 2 could easily coexist even if the packages did allow it. They have different pieces of infrastructure, and GNOME applications tend to start up any infrastructure they need that isn't already running. And then they leave it running when they exit. My remaining GNOME 1 apps continue to work fine under GNOME 2. The bigger problem is that the GNOME 2 development seemingly involved dropping as many options/preferences as possible... :-( -- Best Regards, | Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into Sebastian | your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:44:02PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:00:13 +0200, Michael Heironimus wrote: Is anybody keeping score on how many different and unrelated font configuration systems we have now? Ermm... XF86Config... and fontconfig. What else? I guess I'm not so much thinking of independent systems as of different places people have to look when something's not right. XF86Config, Xft, a font server if you run one, fontconfig for GTK2, and let's not forget gtkrc, KDE, and X resources. If you want to be anal there are also all those apps that use their own font configuration, like the Mozilla-based browsers. My remaining GNOME 1 apps continue to work fine under GNOME 2. The bigger problem is that the GNOME 2 development seemingly involved dropping as many options/preferences as possible... :-( I hear you there. I'm waiting for GNOME3 to further improve usability by removing the ability to launch applications. As soon as you log in, it should just automatically start all of the applications that the GNOME developers think you should be running. After all, they're such experts on how everybody should be using their desktops. -- Michael Heironimus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The nature of testing and where can others help (Was Re: HowTo for Gnome2??)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote: Unfortunatly for a Debian neophyte like myself your descriptions seem to be contrary on some points to the statements describing the packages found here: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages. I may be misunderstanding the last paragraph of your post, but the phrase choosing one of these options also brings you the bonus that you'll get security updates more quickly as testing is the last place for security updates to appear seems quite opposite of the statement from the packages web page 'unstable' is also not supported by the security team. Unstable is not supported, but it is where new packages must filter through before reaching Testing. So, you have Stable which receives direct security updates. And Unstable which will no doubt rapidly have a new package uploaded by the maintainer when a security problem is found. And Testing that must wait for packages in Unstable to filter down to it. You may be speaking from experiance, implying that the unofficial packages found through apt-get.org or the unstable packages are more likely to have security patches applied than testing because developers would be activly updating these packages whereas packages in testing have to pass the automated processes criteria, Exactly. If the rules for testing is that it's ok to stick the engine in without a carburetor or exhaust system because they will go in sometime down the line before it is sold to people, then I guess these dependancies don't matter in testing, and maybe testing should have a disclaimer It's probably broken, but we don't want to hear about it because it wasn't for sale yet anyway. IIRC, there was an indication a while back that Gnome2 was being manually forced through into Testing. My understanding of the automated process is that a package can not automatically make it into testing unless it's dependancies can be met by other packages already in Testing or those migrating with it. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The nature of testing and where can others help (Was Re: HowTo for Gnome2??)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:13:10PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote: If the rules for testing is that it's ok to stick the engine in without a carburetor or exhaust system because they will go in sometime down the line before it is sold to people, then I guess these dependancies don't matter in testing, and maybe testing should have a disclaimer It's probably broken, but we don't want to hear about it because it wasn't for sale yet anyway. IIRC, there was an indication a while back that Gnome2 was being manually forced through into Testing. No, it's not. The components that have so far been upgraded were upgraded entirely automatically. The dependencies within the GNOME 2 packages are simply not strict enough to prevent (say) gnome-panel being installed into testing with an older gnome-control-center (and it's possible that they can't be, which is why releases aren't automatic either ...). -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The nature of testing and where can others help (Was Re: HowTo for Gnome2??)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:40:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:13:10PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: IIRC, there was an indication a while back that Gnome2 was being manually forced through into Testing. No, it's not. I sit corrected then. The components that have so far been upgraded were upgraded entirely automatically. The dependencies within the GNOME 2 packages are simply not strict enough to prevent (say) gnome-panel being installed into testing with an older gnome-control-center Would this not constitute a bug? (and it's possible that they can't be, which is why releases aren't automatic either ...). I find it hard to believe that the dependancies for the Gnome packages couldn't have been set to stop this from happening. -- Jamin W. Collins To be nobody but yourself when the whole world is trying it's best night and day to make you everybody else is to fight the hardest battle any human being will fight. -- E.E. Cummings -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HowTo for Gnome2??
Hello, I upgraded from stable to testing, in order to be able to start using Gnome2, only to find that there was no good way to get a complete, usable Gnome2 installation. Many things are broken, including: 1) Fonts. They are really ugly, and it seems that the previous defaults were just ignored. 2) The Gnome Settings Daemon was not installed, and it repeatedly complains about that lack. I can't find any package that indicates that it might contain this semi-mythical daemon. 3) It seems impossible to figure out what will conflict with what, without actually trying just about every combination. Incompatible packages are all stuffed into the gnome section, with no clue as to what packages should be installed to get a reasonably complete Gnome2 installation. I seem to have installed, and uninstalled, parts of both Gnome and Gnome2 several times now. There was rumour of a gnome2 meta package. It doesn't seem to actually exist. Perhaps it's only in experimental? 4) There SHOULD be a way to run both Gnome and Gnome2 on the same machine, as the major number of the libraries is different, but the packages seem to be configured in such a way as to insist that these are incompatible. Yes, this will eat up more memory (both library versions must be resident at the same time), but if Gnome2 in testing simply isn't yet complete, then I really have no choice. Is there any documentation on how, using testing, to get the most complete (applets, to, please!) Gnome2 installation possible? Please, no suggestion about pinning anything, as there doesn't seem to be any documentation or man pages about what that is, or how to do that, either. Thanks, John S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 09:17, John W. M. Stevens wrote: I upgraded from stable to testing, in order to be able to start using Gnome2, only to find that there was no good way to get a complete, usable Gnome2 installation. Try to get to Sid; I think Sid's Gnome is much better. 1) Fonts. They are really ugly, and it seems that the previous defaults were just ignored. I use ttf-freefont for the fonts and xfs-xtt for the font server. TrueType fonts are good on Gnome2. 3) It seems impossible to figure out what will conflict with what, without actually trying just about every combination. Incompatible packages are all stuffed into the gnome section, I believe that's because you use testing, which has mixed Gnomes inside. 4) There SHOULD be a way to run both Gnome and Gnome2 on the same machine, With some costs, maybe. Oki -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:17:46PM -0600, John W. M. Stevens wrote: I upgraded from stable to testing, in order to be able to start using Gnome2, only to find that there was no good way to get a complete, usable Gnome2 installation. Oops. GNOME in testing seems to be in very poor shape right now. Things are halfway migrated from 1 to 2. You can get a usable GNOME2 desktop (well, as usable as GNOME2 ever manages to be), but not a complete one. 1) Fonts. They are really ugly, and it seems that the previous defaults were just ignored. GNOME 2 (well, GTK2) uses a different font configuration back-end. When I tried to sort through that on other systems with GNOME2 I found that the documentation is so shamefully poor that all I could do was search the web and look at other people's solutions. Is anybody keeping score on how many different and unrelated font configuration systems we have now? 2) The Gnome Settings Daemon was not installed, and it repeatedly complains about that lack. I can't find any package that indicates that it might contain this semi-mythical daemon. I think that's because you need the GNOME Control Center, and that hasn't made it in to testing yet. Core pieces of GNOME2 haven't been moved from unstable to testing, while other pieces have. 3) It seems impossible to figure out what will conflict with what, without actually trying just about every combination. Incompatible packages are all stuffed into the gnome section, with no clue as to what packages should be installed to get a reasonably complete Gnome2 installation. I seem to have installed, and uninstalled, parts of both Gnome and Gnome2 several times now. There was rumour of a gnome2 meta package. It doesn't seem to actually exist. Perhaps it's only in experimental? Probably. If there were such a thing in testing you couldn't possibly install it because not all of the dependencies exist. At a minimum, it would need to pull in the Control Center and GNOME-Terminal, neither of which seems to be in testing yet. 4) There SHOULD be a way to run both Gnome and Gnome2 on the same machine, as the major number of the libraries is different, but the packages seem to be configured in such a way as to insist that these are incompatible. Yes, this will eat up more memory (both library versions must be resident at the same time), but if Gnome2 in testing simply isn't yet complete, then I really have no choice. I'm not sure that GNOME 1 and 2 could easily coexist even if the packages did allow it. They have different pieces of infrastructure, and GNOME applications tend to start up any infrastructure they need that isn't already running. And then they leave it running when they exit. -- Michael Heironimus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
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? 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. 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=nobug=154950 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. 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'. I haven't run across any applets not working, and my gnome-panel v2.2.2-1 seems to be running ok (with the exception of trying to launch terminal based apps with gnome-terminal which is also missing in testing, held up in unstable with autobuild issues.) Jacob Anawalt John W. M. Stevens wrote: Hello, I upgraded from stable to testing, in order to be able to start using Gnome2, only to find that there was no good way to get a complete, usable Gnome2 installation. Many things are broken, including: 1) Fonts. They are really ugly, and it seems that the previous defaults were just ignored. 2) The Gnome Settings Daemon was not installed, and it repeatedly complains about that lack. I can't find any package that indicates that it might contain this semi-mythical daemon. 3) It seems impossible to figure out what will conflict with what, without actually trying just about every combination. Incompatible packages are all stuffed into the gnome section, with no clue as to what packages should be installed to get a reasonably complete Gnome2 installation. I seem to have installed, and uninstalled, parts of both Gnome and Gnome2 several times now. There was rumour of a gnome2 meta package. It doesn't seem to actually exist. Perhaps it's only in experimental? 4) There SHOULD be a way to run both Gnome and Gnome2 on the same machine, as the major number of the libraries is different, but the packages seem to be configured in such a way as to insist that these are incompatible. Yes, this will eat up more memory (both library versions must be resident at the same time), but if Gnome2 in testing simply isn't yet complete, then I really have no choice. Is there any documentation on how, using testing, to get the most complete (applets, to, please!) Gnome2 installation possible? Please, no suggestion about pinning anything, as there doesn't seem to be any documentation or man pages about what that is, or how to do that, either. Thanks, John S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HowTo for Gnome2??
I don't see exactly what the fuss is. Fonts are fine for me - I do remember previous updates (maybe a month ago) in testing breaking them momentarily, however, so this may not be a GNOME issue. As for the rest of the GNOME2 packages, they're just not here yet - deal with it. I backed up my sources.list, changed it to unstable, did an apt-get update, apt-get install gnome-core, and then restored the old sources.list. Works fine. Nautilus 2 is worlds faster than the original, fonts are nice, everything is anti-aliased, blah, blah, blah... If you're absolutely opposed to any unstable packages, then I guess you're screwed. That's what you get for running testing. --Todd On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:17:46 -0600 John W. M. Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I upgraded from stable to testing, in order to be able to start using Gnome2, only to find that there was no good way to get a complete, usable Gnome2 installation. Many things are broken, including: 1) Fonts. They are really ugly, and it seems that the previous defaults were just ignored. 2) The Gnome Settings Daemon was not installed, and it repeatedly complains about that lack. I can't find any package that indicates that it might contain this semi-mythical daemon. 3) It seems impossible to figure out what will conflict with what, without actually trying just about every combination. Incompatible packages are all stuffed into the gnome section, with no clue as to what packages should be installed to get a reasonably complete Gnome2 installation. I seem to have installed, and uninstalled, parts of both Gnome and Gnome2 several times now. There was rumour of a gnome2 meta package. It doesn't seem to actually exist. Perhaps it's only in experimental? 4) There SHOULD be a way to run both Gnome and Gnome2 on the same machine, as the major number of the libraries is different, but the packages seem to be configured in such a way as to insist that these are incompatible. Yes, this will eat up more memory (both library versions must be resident at the same time), but if Gnome2 in testing simply isn't yet complete, then I really have no choice. Is there any documentation on how, using testing, to get the most complete (applets, to, please!) Gnome2 installation possible? Please, no suggestion about pinning anything, as there doesn't seem to be any documentation or man pages about what that is, or how to do that, either. Thanks, John S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
