Re: [arch-general] Can't run gnome 3
On 04/10/2011 07:42 AM, Madhurya Kakati wrote: Hi, I installed gnome 3 from the testing repo. I haven't been able to start. Noe from KDE if I try to run gedit I get this error. [papul@papuldesktop ~]$ gedit gedit: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libgtk-3.so.0: undefined symbol: g_application_get_type Please help. pacman -Syu -- Ionuț
Re: [arch-general] base stuff
Dne So 9. dubna 2011 00:02:20 Thomas S Hatch napsal(a): On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Hmm... I thought it was a a patch. Was it declared unstable/unsupported upstream then? There was something weird like that. Anyway, I still see nothing wrong with creating SELinux packages and having them available in [community], although I would like to see a separate repo at least for the start. Allan If thats the case, then I will look into working with Nicky726 (The maintainer of the SELinux packages in the AUR) and find a home for a third party SELinux repo. -Thomas S Hatch OK, having the packages in binary form is imo better than in the AUR so I dont mind if it is in the [community] or in a separate repo that much. And of course I would be glad for any help from other Archers. Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
[arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ...
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Dennis Beekman d.c.beekman.de...@gmail.com wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? I believe (not very sure) that most of these can be changed by editing the themes themselves. Eventually I guess there'd be GUI tools to configure them, but not yet. There's just gnome-tweak-tool. 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... Not how Arch works. You'd have to bring that up with Gnome devs. Not sure you'd have much luck there. Or you could just save yourself the hassle and just switch over to XFCE, awesomewm, the possibilities are endless. More productive than pining over a DE that's now officially dead (dying).
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... Sir, 1. Get a Blog 2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying to an existing thread and changing the topic In terms of Arch: *To answer your question, no gnome 3 is staying and we wont see gnome2 in the official repos. There is nothing than prevents you or someone else from creating a unofficial gnome2 repo. In terms of Upstream: *Seems as if upstream doesn't care much about gnome2 any more... you or someone else can fork it ~pyther
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On 04/10/2011 10:50 PM, Dennis Beekman wrote: Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... i give it you the option to create a custom repo with gnome 2.32 but doing in the way that doesn't conflict with the current packages and install all modules+dependencies in /opt if you don't know how to do this then this here is list with new distributions that ship gnome 2.32: * opensuse * ubuntu * debian -- Ionuț
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is. We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead. Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that. But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest old version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ?
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Dennis Beekman d.c.beekman.de...@gmail.com wrote: We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead. Perhaps being 'forced' to those DEs is a good thing? Linux has lots of choices. Those who don't want choice can use some other OS just fine, all power to them. Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that. But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest old version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ? No, because that's not how Arch works. Gnome3 is not broken, nor will it break anyone's computer. Arch is bleeding-edge, it said so on the sticker when you installed it =)
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 22:07 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is. We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead. Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that. But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest old version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ? No, we can't maintain gnome2 + gnome3 at the same time, create your own 3rd party repo for it -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Dennis Beekman d.c.beekman.de...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is. We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. I have to reply to this. Openbox is not a DE, but for Xfce, I can show you *tons* of screenshots where you won't be able to say whether it's Xfce or Gnome. So, go install Xfce 4, rtfm, and configure it to your liking. I'm sure you'll realize you can make it look *exactly* like Gnome 2.x. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead. Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that. But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest old version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ?
[arch-general] Gnome3 and Gnome2
So, now that Gnome 3 has been released, and after reading the announcement that it will 'by default' replace gnome2 in the near future, I'd like to ask if there are any plans on 'keeping' gnome2 around for use with arch linux. I ask this, because I've been using gnome3 from the unstable repository, and know, that a lot of people are not going to like the change, especially because so called 'fall-back-mode' is just a joke, and gnome-shell, at least to me is plain broken. I'm merely voicing my opinion here, no flames :-P But to have a choice would be great! Tom
Re: [arch-general] Gnome3 and Gnome2
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 13:47 +0200, Tom wrote: So, now that Gnome 3 has been released, and after reading the announcement that it will 'by default' replace gnome2 in the near future, I'd like to ask if there are any plans on 'keeping' gnome2 around for use with arch linux. I ask this, because I've been using gnome3 from the unstable repository, and know, that a lot of people are not going to like the change, especially because so called 'fall-back-mode' is just a joke, and gnome-shell, at least to me is plain broken. I'm merely voicing my opinion here, no flames :-P But to have a choice would be great! Tom GNOME2 is dead! Long live GNOME3! GNOME3 will replace GNOME2 when it hit's [extra] -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 16:50:41 -0300, Dennis Beekman d.c.beekman.de...@gmail.com wrote: Linux is about freedom. You have tons of WM and DE to choose from, I suggest to give a try to Xfce and LXDE. Both work almost the same as Gnome 2 without the bloat. Anyway, whining in Arch's discussion mail because of a DE decision seems wrong to me. I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... -- Martin
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Or you could just save yourself the hassle and just switch over to XFCE, awesomewm, the possibilities are endless. More productive than pining over a DE that's now officially dead (dying). xfce depends on gtk2. when gnome3 hits the repo, i assume gtk3 will deprecate gtk2, which will in turn deprecate xfce. it is possible to maintain gtk2 and gtk3 at the same time, but using a desktop environment depending on a deprecated library seems not so good. anyway, we are still using tons of applications depending on the deprecated python2. :p
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
Hello Fellow Archers, Most people say that Arch is cutting edge and saving GNOME2 as gnome2 is not the the Arch way. I know that packaging and maintaining GNOME2 is a hard task that no devs would want to take care of and that we'll most likely be seeing unofficial repositories but what about python? Despite the upstream python is 3.x, we still have python2 for failback? So is that the Arch way? I believe there's no need to say that preserving GNOME2 is not the Arch way. It's also unreliable and unwanted to use the unstable repository to test GNOME3 since it's probably not ready for end users imho. We'll see better integration soon. --- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sunday, April 10, 2011 14:50:41 Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. This is all a matter of opinion. I like KDE 4 a lot. It's big, but I doubt there isn't a hard disk made within the last 15 years that can't fit it. It's definitely not bloated nearly as much as Windows is. KDE 4.6 is still downright lightweight compared to Windows 7. My chief complaint against GNOME 3 is that it requires Pulse Audio. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. Look, if you like a simple desktop with fewer features and a more straightforware approach and less eye candy, all the power to you. Just don't assume that's what EVERYONE wants in a desktop. I like the eye candy and almost ridiculous amount of options and settings KDE SC 4 gives me. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. You could alter the themes, get more themes. I don't know how close to Plasma the new GNOME desktop is, but even KDE SC 4 offered ways to configure its panel look and feel. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. Just sounds like you haven't figured out how to change the themes yet. GNOME 3 *is* a major change over GNOME 2, after all. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? I don't understand this complaint. Didn't GNOME 2 also offer settings all in one or two menus before? This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? I'm fairly certain that GNOME 3 doesn't force you to use visual effects. If you turn that off it'd likely speed right up. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore Aforementioned GNOME developers stripping away nice features because they erroneously think they confuse users. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. KDE SC 4 is only really bloated when you install all its packages. And it's bloat is still nowehre near comparable to Windows Vista or 7. If you can't fit KDE SC 4 on a hard disk even an old SMALL one, you need a new hard disk, because its a wonder you can fit anything on there. Also, KDE SC 4 hasn't been nearly that bad since 4.3 came out, and it's pretty solid as of 4.6. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... This is a matter of opinion and experience. As I said. Post-KDE SC 2.3 is pretty stable, and bloat is overstated when it's not even clearing a GiB of hard disk space. This is not something the Arch developers have any power over. So this is not the place to complain about it. Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. I personally believe Ubuntu moving over to Unity was a mistake. And I fear th whining that will come when the planned move to Wayland happens due to it not having nearly as good support as Xorg. My opinion is that a lot of people overestimate KMS support in Linux. I would have waited a couple more years for KMS to mature before planning my desktop around it. Also, we're Arch, not Ubuntu. We're not forcing you to use GNOME 3 or Unity. Not forcing you to use KDE SC 4, either. Instead of bitching on Arch general and wasting space on our inboxes, you could have just switched to Xfce or LXDE if you wanted a lightweight desktop environment. Or you could have switched to the dozens of
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sunday, April 10, 2011 15:07:27 Dennis Beekman wrote: On 04/10/2011 03:50 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. Gnome 2 was brilliant just a simple easy to use system with load off good looking features, gnome 3 however is useless in all respects as far as i can tell from whats in testing. 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by gnome 3. 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems. It's not. 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one menu ? where are my seperate icons i love so much ? why can we choose wich icons or options we want ? 4. What about the people ho don't have or don't wich to use they're video hardware to run the these stupid graphics ... are we stuck with fallback mode wich is even more stupid and backward ? 5 Where did all the nice applets go ? and why can i not add them to my taskbar anymore [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Now i finnaly understand why the Ubuntu guys decided to use they're netbook unity system rather then this shit, eventhough unity sucks it better then Gnome 3 in all respects. [/flaming] Can we not just keeps using the old version and ignore the new version of gnome for now until they get they act together ? or hopefully decide to go back to the old interface and develop that further instead ... You probably want to read more about GNOME3 and how it breaks with GNOME2. This is not our discussion, but upstreams and we just package vanilla packages. So this 'flame' post is useless. Well it might be my imagination but it seems Desktop Enviroments on linux are more bloated and buggy now then Windows is. We are being forced to use de's like openbox or xfce wich is the primary reason people shy away from unix/linux when changing from Windows to another OS. It just becomes to confusing and complicated from they point of view and they choose MAC or another Windows versions instead. Even i as a seasoned linux user ho switched over from ubuntu to arch a while ago it doesn't make any sense to me why they would do this i tell you the amount of Gnome users in my point is view in going to halve if not drop any further then that. But ofcourse it is Gnome at fault here and not ARCH but still, can we not keeps the latest old version from before the release in the nomal repo's until they update 3.0 a couple of times ? GNOME 2's probably not even going to LAST that long. Once some libraries staart getting new releases and feature changes to them, GNOME 2's going to find itself simply *not* working due to a library not being what it needs. And, as you said, it's not Arch's fault, so stop wasting inbox space with useless flamebait, please.
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
2011-04-10 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman: I use linux becuase i think that windows is just to bloated to even be considered ... but lately Linux has been going in the same direction when it comes to the desktop enviroments Gnome 3 KDE 4. I read about various comparisons between Linux vs. Windows, Gnome vs. Kde, Emacs vs. Vim, a Linux distribution vs. another one, etc. since ten years! Always the same things! Go away and don't use a computer! :-)
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sunday 10 April 2011 10:09:25 am Oon-Ee Ng wrote: [putolin] No, because that's not how Arch works. Gnome3 is not broken, nor will it break anyone's computer. Arch is bleeding-edge, it said so on the sticker when you installed it =) Hey wait I didn't get any sticker when I installed it. I want my money back!
Re: [arch-general] Gnome3 and Gnome2
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Tom uebersh...@googlemail.com wrote: So, now that Gnome 3 has been released, and after reading the announcement that it will 'by default' replace gnome2 in the near future, I'd like to ask if there are any plans on 'keeping' gnome2 around for use with arch linux. I ask this, because I've been using gnome3 from the unstable repository, and know, that a lot of people are not going to like the change, especially because so called 'fall-back-mode' is just a joke, and gnome-shell, at least to me is plain broken. I'm merely voicing my opinion here, no flames :-P But to have a choice would be great! Tom Hi Tom, AFAIK there are no plans to officially support gnome2. People have complained about this in the recent past, but these complaints are useless because arch keeps up with upstream, no matter if people like the change or not. These people should have already known that this is part of arch's philosophy. That said, you, or anyone else who wants gnome2 can step up and maintain a custom gnome2 repository for everyone. Sincerely, Tom2 :)
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:50:41 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Please stop calling KDE bloated. As a former Windows user I find both Gnome and KDE over simplistic and both lack some kind of bonding between various parts like Windows does. In that regard tough, KDE SC is doing much better than Gnome and I guess that's what the SC part means. What you may find bloated is the fact that the two major video card makers do a terrible job in supporting their over-heating-barely-2D-60euro-windows-only-cards and rely on the FOSS devs to build drivers for them. Both NVIDIA and AMD do a semi-lousy job with drivers in the Windows world and I don't expect better anytime soon. Add this to the fact that the kernel isn't exactly desktop optimized (stuff like let me move the mouse while I extract that damn 4G archive) and you'll probably get what feels like a slow system. Now what could a DE could do in this situation? I know that kwin does extensive checks in regards to video driver capabilities and maybe Gnome just isn't that far on this. That said, KDE SC with the free radeon driver in 2.6.38 is outperforming the catalyst driver with 2.6.37 in regards to desktop effects (I can't say anything about nouveau). IMHO! -- Arthur Titeica
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 19:40 +0300, Alper Kanat wrote: s/failback/fallback/g sorry for the typo.. --- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:39, Alper Kanat tu...@raptiye.org wrote: Hello Fellow Archers, Most people say that Arch is cutting edge and saving GNOME2 as gnome2 is not the the Arch way. I know that packaging and maintaining GNOME2 is a hard task that no devs would want to take care of and that we'll most likely be seeing unofficial repositories but what about python? Despite the upstream python is 3.x, we still have python2 for failback? So is that the Arch way? quote from python.org The current production versions are Python 2.7.1 and Python 3.2. Start with one of these versions for learning Python or if you want the most stability; they're both considered stable production releases.now. While with GNOME it's the case that GNOME2 is dead , SO LONG LIVE GNOME3!! *jelly drinks beer with his gnome friends -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
First up, sorry for going off topic a bit. On Sunday 10 April 2011 19:42:57 Arthur Titeica wrote: Add this to the fact that the kernel isn't exactly desktop optimized (stuff like let me move the mouse while I extract that damn 4G archive) and you'll probably get what feels like a slow system. This is a good point. 2.6.38 should help with this issue under high load. Out of interest are there any distros that customize the default kernel for desktop usage? If so, is there arch documentation on this(perhaps I should search first). Now what could a DE could do in this situation? I know that kwin does extensive checks in regards to video driver capabilities and maybe Gnome just isn't that far on this. That said, KDE SC with the free radeon driver in 2.6.38 is outperforming the catalyst driver with 2.6.37 in regards to desktop effects (I can't say anything about nouveau). I have a Mobility Radeon HD 3650 and since 2.6.37 + xf86-video-ati=6.14.0 graphics are more stable and faster than catalyst. Open source video drivers are really getting there. Thank goodness no more catalyst driver for me. -- Divan Santana
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011, Jelle van der Waa wrote: While with GNOME it's the case that GNOME2 is dead , SO LONG LIVE GNOME3!! *jelly drinks beer with his gnome friends Seriously, if someone does fork gnome2, they should so call it troll. Pete.
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:42:57 Arthur Titeica wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:50:41 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote: [flaming] I though KDE 4 was bad and bloated and that i couldn't get any worse... it seems i was wrong. Boy this new Gnome version is even more bloated and buggy then KDE 4 wich is quite the atchievement from the gnome team... Please stop calling KDE bloated. As a former Windows user I find both Gnome and KDE over simplistic and both lack some kind of bonding between various parts like Windows does. In that regard tough, KDE SC is doing much better than Gnome and I guess that's what the SC part means. The SC part is the KDE devs realizing that KDE has gone way beyond being a desktop environment and went on to be a full-scale software compendium and community. It's almost become the Microsoft of Linux (But in a good way.) in that it covers almost everything. What you may find bloated is the fact that the two major video card makers do a terrible job in supporting their over-heating-barely-2D-60euro-windows-only-cards and rely on the FOSS devs to build drivers for them. I dunno. nVidia seems to do a good job, driver-wise, for their cards on Linux. Keep it up to date, don't leave out new Xorg/OpenGL features. ATI's not too great at Linux support, unfortunately. Both NVIDIA and AMD do a semi-lousy job with drivers in the Windows world and I don't expect better anytime soon. Again, I've had no issues with drivers in Windows or Linux nVidia-wise. Add this to the fact that the kernel isn't exactly desktop optimized (stuff like let me move the mouse while I extract that damn 4G archive) and you'll probably get what feels like a slow system. This is largely because the kernel devs (accurately) figure that the typical application for Linux is more for servers and high-performance computing. Desktop optimization is pretty low-priority. When kernel 38 comes out (Might be tonight, I think.) we'll have the Wonder Patch which will make a desktop speedy, or so I am told. Now what could a DE could do in this situation? I know that kwin does extensive checks in regards to video driver capabilities and maybe Gnome just isn't that far on this. They're generally pretty good functionality checks, though sometimes I don;t like KDE to turn off my eye candy when things get slow. That said, KDE SC with the free radeon driver in 2.6.38 is outperforming the catalyst driver with 2.6.37 in regards to desktop effects (I can't say anything about nouveau). I couldn't even get Nouveau's Gallium driver to work with OpenGL. nVidia's proprietary driver is still way ahead of Nouveau on this. Pretty much the chief feature of Nouveau is KMS for nVidia users. Personally, I'd rather have good OpenGL support than KMS. IMHO! My humble opinion, too.
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
On Sunday, April 10, 2011 13:13:42 Jelle van der Waa wrote: On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 19:40 +0300, Alper Kanat wrote: s/failback/fallback/g sorry for the typo.. --- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 19:39, Alper Kanat tu...@raptiye.org wrote: Hello Fellow Archers, Most people say that Arch is cutting edge and saving GNOME2 as gnome2 is not the the Arch way. I know that packaging and maintaining GNOME2 is a hard task that no devs would want to take care of and that we'll most likely be seeing unofficial repositories but what about python? Despite the upstream python is 3.x, we still have python2 for failback? So is that the Arch way? quote from python.org The current production versions are Python 2.7.1 and Python 3.2. Start with one of these versions for learning Python or if you want the most stability; they're both considered stable production releases.now. While with GNOME it's the case that GNOME2 is dead , SO LONG LIVE GNOME3!! *jelly drinks beer with his gnome friends That was the point I was trying to make. GNOME 2 is being dropped not just because GNOME 3 is here, but because upstream is dropping it and nobody wants to go through the trouble to try to maintain something entirely unsupported upstream. And, for the millionth time, when a shared library GNOME 2 uses gets a major version bump, there goes any semblance of compatibility it would have.
[arch-general] [signoff] mkinitcpio 0.6.10
Fixes: - FS#23467 - FS#22080 - FS#13900 - FS#23622 It also introduces /run. Please sign off. Shortlog: Thomas Bächler (6): Fix broken command line parsing due to insufficient quoting introduced in 42e8dba5dce4879e4a372c5c2fb5446b4e8bb16c. init: Unify/improve mount --move handling Introduce /run Allow initramfs to be completely silent: Fix problems in parsing the kernel command line Release mkinitcpio 0.6.10 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
According to Baho Utot: # Hey wait I didn't get any sticker when I installed it. # # I want my money back! I don't need my money back. It hasn't broken my system or mamed any puppies yet, so a refund is not necessary. Just give me the sticker and we'll call it even. :) ~Kyle
[arch-general] Using python3 setup.py in PKGBUILDs
I recently started creating/maintaining packages for the AUR. One request I've run up against is allowing users to relink /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python2, but still have package building work. Apparently the current policy is to use python setup.py for Python 3 packages, but that breaks Python 3 package building for users who relink. Using python3 setup.py fixes that problem. Could that policy change? I searched around for a conversation, but couldn't find anything. Also, the policy itself is undocumented in the wiki and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD-python.proto. -Aaron DeVore
Re: [arch-general] Using python3 setup.py in PKGBUILDs
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Aaron DeVore aaron.dev...@gmail.com wrote: I recently started creating/maintaining packages for the AUR. One request I've run up against is allowing users to relink /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python2, but still have package building work. Apparently the current policy is to use python setup.py for Python 3 packages, but that breaks Python 3 package building for users who relink. Using python3 setup.py fixes that problem. Could that policy change? I searched around for a conversation, but couldn't find anything. Also, the policy itself is undocumented in the wiki and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD-python.proto. -Aaron DeVore AFAICR users who relink python to python2 are on their own. This breaks repo packages as well, not just AUR packages.
Re: [arch-general] Gnome3 and Gnome2
Gnome 3 is, frankly, not ready yet. It's a bit like the original KDE4 situation - it has promise, but also serious rough edges (20% CPU usage when moving the mouse, complete no-go with binary nvidia drivers, ...), and is lacking basic features gnome 2 had. (sensors applet, startup application management, multi-monitor, custom keybindings, ...). I think removing Gnome2 from arch's repositories would be a mistake. Even gentoo is maintaining gnome2 support until At least Gnome 3.2. If myself and others volunteered to help maintain a [gnome2] repo, would it be considered for official mirrorage? - Neph On 04/10/2011 06:47 AM, Tom wrote: So, now that Gnome 3 has been released, and after reading the announcement that it will 'by default' replace gnome2 in the near future, I'd like to ask if there are any plans on 'keeping' gnome2 around for use with arch linux. I ask this, because I've been using gnome3 from the unstable repository, and know, that a lot of people are not going to like the change, especially because so called 'fall-back-mode' is just a joke, and gnome-shell, at least to me is plain broken. I'm merely voicing my opinion here, no flames :-P But to have a choice would be great! Tom
Re: [arch-general] Gnome3 and Gnome2
2011/4/10 Nephyrin Zey nephy...@doublezen.net: Gnome 3 is, frankly, not ready yet. It's a bit like the original KDE4 situation - it has promise, but also serious rough edges (20% CPU usage when moving the mouse, complete no-go with binary nvidia drivers, ...), and is lacking basic features gnome 2 had. (sensors applet, startup application management, multi-monitor, custom keybindings, ...). I don't see those problems here. Gnome 3 is stable and does not consume all that CPU here. Just a little more then kde. When I need high performance I use openbox anyway. The problem I see with this first release is the lack of features and customization, but that will come with time I guess.
[arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report.
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report. What's your version of cloog?
Re: [arch-general] Gnome3 and Gnome2
On 04/10/2011 09:02 PM, Nephyrin Zey wrote: I think removing Gnome2 from arch's repositories would be a mistake. Even gentoo is maintaining gnome2 support until At least Gnome 3.2. If myself and others volunteered to help maintain a [gnome2] repo, would it be considered for official mirrorage? - Neph Answer: It breaks the flow of the conversation Question: Why is topping posting bad? To answer your question, no. You'd have to find your own mirrors to host a gnome2 repo and it would be considered unofficial.
Re: [arch-general] Using python3 setup.py in PKGBUILDs
On 11/04/11 10:48, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Aaron DeVoreaaron.dev...@gmail.com wrote: I recently started creating/maintaining packages for the AUR. One request I've run up against is allowing users to relink /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python2, but still have package building work. Apparently the current policy is to use python setup.py for Python 3 packages, but that breaks Python 3 package building for users who relink. Using python3 setup.py fixes that problem. Could that policy change? I searched around for a conversation, but couldn't find anything. Also, the policy itself is undocumented in the wiki and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD-python.proto. -Aaron DeVore AFAICR users who relink python to python2 are on their own. This breaks repo packages as well, not just AUR packages. Correct. This currently breaks all sort of stuff so is completely unsupported. Allan
Re: [arch-general] Gnome 3 + KDE 4 are both large disappointments.
Dennis, If you like Gnome2 that much, fix your self up with a nix install with Gnome2 and just don't update for the next few years. No, I'm not kidding. No one is forcing you to upgrade. Complaining about WMs amazes me as they're so may you can choose from. There's so many distros to choose from for that matter too if you don't care for a particular route Arch has taken. Best regards, and I hope you end up with a setup your happy with. You are certainly getting your money's worth at any rate. :)
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report. What's your version of cloog? cloog-0.16.2-1
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report. What's your version of cloog? cloog-0.16.2-1 gcc-multilib works fine here. Please reinstall isl, cloog and gcc-multilib to be sure your system matches the packages.
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
On 11/04/11 13:32, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Steffensjan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Oon-Ee Ngngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report. What's your version of cloog? cloog-0.16.2-1 Hmm... can you post the output of readelf -d /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1 | grep NEEDED and ldd /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1 Cheers, Allan
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report.What's your version of cloog? cloog-0.16.2-1 gcc-multilib works fine here. Please reinstall isl, cloog and gcc-multilib to be sure your system matches the packages. Works well here as well and I'm all up to date (kernel.org) with all testing repos enabled. -- Sven-Hendrik
Re: [arch-general] Using python3 setup.py in PKGBUILDs
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 11/04/11 10:48, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Aaron DeVoreaaron.dev...@gmail.com wrote: I recently started creating/maintaining packages for the AUR. One request I've run up against is allowing users to relink /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python2, but still have package building work. Apparently the current policy is to use python setup.py for Python 3 packages, but that breaks Python 3 package building for users who relink. Using python3 setup.py fixes that problem. Could that policy change? I searched around for a conversation, but couldn't find anything. Also, the policy itself is undocumented in the wiki and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD-python.proto. -Aaron DeVore AFAICR users who relink python to python2 are on their own. This breaks repo packages as well, not just AUR packages. Correct. This currently breaks all sort of stuff so is completely unsupported. Allan relinking python is a bad idea, but imho, explicitly envoking python3 when packaging it not. using python to install python3 packages is like linking to foo.so instead of foo.so.3.
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-multilib] double links to isl 0.05 and 0.06?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase s...@lutzhaase.com wrote: Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jan Steffens jan.steff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.t...@gmail.com wrote: Using [testing] and [multilib-testing], hence gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2 - trying to compile with gcc gives this error /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/cc1: error while loading shared libraries: libisl.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If I install isl-0.05 instead, it will give the same error but for libisl.so.6. gcc from [testing] doesn't give that error. Could someone else quickly help me check if they get the same? If so I'll submit a bug report.What's your version of cloog? cloog-0.16.2-1 gcc-multilib works fine here. Please reinstall isl, cloog and gcc-multilib to be sure your system matches the packages. Works well here as well and I'm all up to date (kernel.org) with all testing repos enabled. -- Sven-Hendrik I was on kernels.org, but as I understand it that would still mean I'm on a different mirror from you out here in the boondocks. Switched mirrors, redownloaded gcc-multilib-4.6.0-2, now it seems to work. Thanks all.
[arch-general] gcc 4.6.0-2 is busted ?
Hello. This morning, I upgraded on testing gcc 4.6.0 to version 4.6.0-2 I try to get mozilla trunk code to get build, and I get a segfault while compiling a file. Reported bug : https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23687 Downgrading to version 4.6.0-1 makes this bug disappears... Strange. Gcc was fully updated : [2011-04-11 06:29] synchronizing package lists [2011-04-11 06:29] Running 'pacman -S -u' [2011-04-11 06:29] starting full system upgrade [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded bluez (4.90-1 - 4.91-1) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded isl (0.05.1-1 - 0.06-1) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded cloog (0.16.1-1 - 0.16.2-1) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded gcc (4.6.0-1 - 4.6.0-2) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded gcc-libs (4.6.0-1 - 4.6.0-2) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded mesa (7.10.1-2 - 7.10.2-2) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded mkinitcpio (0.6.9-1 - 0.6.10-1) [2011-04-11 06:30] upgraded wxgtk (2.8.11-2 - 2.8.12-1) -- Frederic Bezies - fredbez...@gmail.com Weblog : http://frederic.bezies.free.fr/blog/
