Ralph, I'm afraid I can't figure out whats happening to you. The fact
that
xdm doesn't work may be indication of a deeper (X11?) problem. At this point
I can only suggest reposting your question, with the data you provided, back
to the list. Remove the 'Re:' from the subject line so t
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> Ralph Winslow wrote:
> >
> > Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > >
> > > Ralph Winslow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When Clyde Wilson wrote, I replied:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
> > > > When I tried this I got
> > > >
> > > > # /usr/sbin/xbase-configure
> > > >
Ralph Winslow wrote:
>
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >
> > Ralph Winslow wrote:
> > >
> > > When Clyde Wilson wrote, I replied:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is there a known problem with the xbase package from the
> > > > > 2.0release? It
> > > > >
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> Ralph Winslow wrote:
> >
> > When Clyde Wilson wrote, I replied:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there a known problem with the xbase package from the
> > > > 2.0release? It
> > > > failed to install some required config files,
Ralph Winslow wrote:
>
> When Clyde Wilson wrote, I replied:
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a known problem with the xbase package from the
> > > 2.0release? It
> > > failed to install some required config files, and dpkg even
> > > sugested I
> > >
When Clyde Wilson wrote, I replied:
>
> On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > Is there a known problem with the xbase package from the 2.0release?
> > It
> > failed to install some required config files, and dpkg even sugested I
> > file a bug report against it.
> >
> I
On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
> Is there a known problem with the xbase package from the 2.0release? It
> failed to install some required config files, and dpkg even sugested I
> file a bug report against it.
>
I haven't used dpkg, but dselect seems to do the same thi
Is there a known problem with the xbase package from the 2.0release? It
failed to install some required config files, and dpkg even sugested I
file a bug report against it.
Should I just grab the lates one from the ftp site? If so, should it be
from 2.0 or 2
8 matches
Mail list logo
