On Monday 11 December 2000 08:36 pm, Daniel Velzi wrote:
> Hi Tom, I installed this version downloaded from tucows (must be the
> same I believe) without installing Chris Molnar's version before, and
> all run ok. Kedit is ok and my bookmarks in konqueror are here
> without problem. Perhaps Chris Molnar's version give error ?
> I follow exactly the readme attachment for install (if not you will
> have problems said it). Sorry for my bad english, hope understand :-)
Actually, all I intended was to comment that Chris's KDE2 was
definitely past 2.01. The rpms he made available yesterday update KDE
to 2.1 20001210. I also meant to imply, since I believe a lot of
people on this list were using Chris's rpm's ..... _stick with 'em_.
IMO, on my hardware, Chris's previous 2.01+ or his current 2.1 is much
better than the 'unsupported' 2.01 LM just released. YMMV
--
Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
> > I d/l'd the new 'official unsupported' KDE2.01 rpms as announced
> > on http://www.mandrakeforum.com/article.php3?sid=20001209085323 I
> > first ran a 'rpm -Uvh --test' on them all at once and got back a
> > slew of messages that the packages ( Chris Molnar's
> > ftp://nebsllc.com/pub/KDE_UPDATE ) already installed were newer.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, and thinkin I was being none to smart, I
> > forced an install of the Mdk 2.01 rpm's anyway. It was a big
> > MISTAKE. The resulting KDE2.01 was a _downgrade_ from Chris' KDE2
> > upgrades, and introduced a few bugs as well (eg, kedit wouldn't
> > run, I lost a lot of recent Konqueror bookmarks, etc.).
> >
> > .... needless to say I chalked my experiment up to user error,
> > and have backed out the 2.01 rpms and reinstalled Chris' KDE2.01+
> > rpms. All is well again inspite of myself :)
> > --
> > Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com:
Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
