Re: Gnome 1.0 - 3.16 i snabb foljd

[Luna Jernberg]

trevlig film :)

On 8/22/15, Rolf Edlund  wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c7YLxn4hb4
>
> --
> /Rolf
>
>

Re: Gnome 1.0 - 3.16 i snabb foljd

[Rolf Edlund]

2015-09-07 19:45 GMT+02:00 Luna Jernberg :
> trevlig film :)
>
> On 8/22/15, Rolf Edlund  wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c7YLxn4hb4

Tyckte oxa att den var underhallande att titta pa. Dessutom har jag
aldrig anvant version 1 nagon gang, sa det var spannande att se hur
den sag ut pa den tiden. Snart slapps val aven version 4.

-- 
/Rolf

Re: Gnome 1.0 - 3.16 i snabb foljd

[jan]

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:11:06 +0200
Rolf Edlund  wrote:

> 2015-09-07 19:45 GMT+02:00 Luna Jernberg
> :
> > trevlig film :)
> >
> > On 8/22/15, Rolf Edlund  wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c7YLxn4hb4
> 
> Tyckte oxa att den var underhallande att titta pa. Dessutom har jag
> aldrig anvant version 1 nagon gang, sa det var spannande att se hur
> den sag ut pa den tiden. Snart slapps val aven version 4.
> 

Nu känner jag mig jättegammal. En vandrande anakronism. Jag har kört
både 1 och 2 och testat 3. 3 gav mig bara avsmak. Men det är troligen
mig det är fel på.
Tack och lov så har vi MATE. Annars skulle jag väl bli tvungen att
övergå till XP. Ber om ursäkt för ett osmakligt skämt.

Gnome 1.0 - 3.16 i snabb foljd

[Rolf Edlund]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c7YLxn4hb4feature

-- 
/Rolf

icewm-problems after upgrading to gnome 1.0

[Johann Spies]

After apt-get upgrade icewm and icewm-gnome I do no longer have 4
workspaces and I get the following error message when I run startx
(although X11 and gnome is working otherwise):

Bad option: ShowXButton
Bad option: WindowListFontName
Bad option: AddWorkspace
Bad option: AddWorkspace
Bad option: AddWorkspace
Bad option: AddWorkspace
Could not load font ''.
Could not load font ''.
unknown window option: onTop

It seems as if something in gtk has changed.  If I remember correctly,
apt-get also upgraded gtk.

How do I get 4 workspaces back again?

Johann
 --
| Johann Spies Windsorlaan 19  |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]3201 Pietermaritzburg |
| Tel/Faks Nr. +27 331-46-1310 Suid-Afrika (South Africa)  |
 --

 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
  profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
  for instruction in righteousness;  
 II Timothy 3:16 

Re: icewm-problems after upgrading to gnome 1.0

[Gergely Madarasz]

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Johann Spies wrote:

 After apt-get upgrade icewm and icewm-gnome I do no longer have 4
 workspaces and I get the following error message when I run startx
 (although X11 and gnome is working otherwise):
 
 Bad option: ShowXButton
 Bad option: WindowListFontName
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Could not load font ''.
 Could not load font ''.
 unknown window option: onTop
 
 It seems as if something in gtk has changed.  If I remember correctly,
 apt-get also upgraded gtk.

Some icewm preferences options have changed, check the
/etc/X11/icewm/preferences.dpkg-dist 

 How do I get 4 workspaces back again?

WorkspaceNames= 1 ,  2 ,  3 ,  4 

-- 
Madarasz Gergely   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry.
  Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni.
HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/

Re: icewm-problems after upgrading to gnome 1.0

[Kirk Hogenson]

Johann Spies wrote:
 
 After apt-get upgrade icewm and icewm-gnome I do no longer have 4
 workspaces and I get the following error message when I run startx
 (although X11 and gnome is working otherwise):
 
 Bad option: ShowXButton
 Bad option: WindowListFontName
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Bad option: AddWorkspace
 Could not load font ''.
 Could not load font ''.
 unknown window option: onTop
 
 It seems as if something in gtk has changed.  If I remember correctly,
 apt-get also upgraded gtk.
 
 How do I get 4 workspaces back again?
 

I had the same problem, and (IIRC) the problem was that some of the
option names changed between versions of icewm.

I'm not on my debian box, so I may be remembering some details
incorrectly.  There are docs in /usr/doc/icewm, I believe.

In ~/.icewm/preferences, instead of the AddWorkspace option,
I now use something like:

  WorkSpaceName First, Second, Third, Fourth

(or whatever you want to call them).

I don't remember getting errors on ShowXButton or
WindowListFontName, apparantly more than just the workspace name
options has changed.

HTH,

Kirk

Re: Apt: WAS:: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Michael Beattie]

[snip]

 The frontend is not done yet but the backend and APT dselect method are
 quite functional.  Yes, you should install it.  Get the latest version
 from potato(0.3.3) if you are running slink, it does not depened on
 glibc2.1 so it is safe to install manually

[take with a pinch of salt]
I must ask, What is with the Linux community when most apps are created
from the back end to the front end? I REALLY miss the good old third-party
windoze apps that never worked :) always had that Not implemented yet
window.
[/take with a pinch of salt]

   Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

   PGP Key available, reply with pgpkey as subject.
 -
Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM! -- Bill Gates, 1981
Windows 95 needs at least 8 MB RAM.   -- Bill Gates, 1996
Nobody will ever need Windows 95.   -- logical conclusion
 -
Debian GNU/Linux  Ooohh You are missing out!

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Rick Macdonald]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:

  Ah. Now that I have that fixed, what's the proper place for enlightenment
  0.15 debs for slink? The following contains dependencies on glibg6 =2.1
  so I think it must be for potato:
  
  deb http://www.debian.org/~bma enlightenment/
 
 The enlightenment debs are in the slink GNOME staging area as well.
 Everything should be fine. It's working for me as my default desktop
 environment for work.

OK, got it all now. The bma source was overiding the files in the gnome
staging area. Thanks.

...RickM...

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[MallarJ]

In a message dated 4/2/99 1:31:26 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
   unstable main
  
  What's the difference between the above and:
  
  deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main
  
  What should one use for a slink system?
  

I believe stage 2 is for potato systems.

-Jay

GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[William R Pentney]

So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
0.30 installed and would rather upgrade it the correct way if
indeed possible.

- Bill

RE: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Pollywog]

On 02-Apr-99 William R Pentney wrote:
 
 So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
 package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
 0.30 installed and would rather upgrade it the correct way if
 indeed possible.
 
 - Bill

check here:

http://www.gnome.org/start/getting_debian.shtml

--
Andrew

[PGP5.0 Key ID 0x5EE61C37]

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Syrus Nemat-Nasser]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, William R Pentney wrote:

 So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
 package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
 indeed possible.

Are you using apt? Good. Then, put the following line in your
/etc/apt/sources.list file (in addition to the existing lines):

deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
unstable main

Thanks. Syrus.

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED]UCSD Physics Dept.

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Rick Macdonald]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:

  So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
  package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
  indeed possible.
 
 Are you using apt? Good. Then, put the following line in your
 /etc/apt/sources.list file (in addition to the existing lines):
 
 deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
 unstable main

What's the difference between the above and:

deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main

What should one use for a slink system?

...RickM...

Apt: WAS:: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Pollywog]

On 02-Apr-99 Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
 On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, William R Pentney wrote:
 
 So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
 package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
 indeed possible.
 
 Are you using apt? Good. Then, put the following line in your
 /etc/apt/sources.list file (in addition to the existing lines):

What is apt and should I be using it?

--
Andrew


[PGP5.0 Key ID 0x5EE61C37]

Re: Apt: WAS:: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Brian Servis]

*- On  2 Apr, Pollywog wrote about Apt: WAS:: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?
 
 On 02-Apr-99 Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
 On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, William R Pentney wrote:
 
 So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
 package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
 indeed possible.
 
 Are you using apt? Good. Then, put the following line in your
 /etc/apt/sources.list file (in addition to the existing lines):
 
 What is apt and should I be using it?

Package: apt
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 1168
Maintainer: APT Development Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 0.3.2
Replaces: deity
Provides: libapt-pkg2.2
Depends: libc6, libstdc++2.9
Conflicts: deity
Description: Advanced front-end for dpkg
 This is Debian's next generation front-end for the dpkg package manager.
 It provides the apt-get utility and APT dselect method that provides a
 simpler, safer way to install and upgrade packages.
 .
 APT features complete installation ordering, multiple source capability
 and several other unique features, see the Users Guide in
 /usr/doc/apt/guide.text.gz

The frontend is not done yet but the backend and APT dselect method are
quite functional.  Yes, you should install it.  Get the latest version
from potato(0.3.3) if you are running slink, it does not depened on
glibc2.1 so it is safe to install manually

-- 
Brian 

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Syrus Nemat-Nasser]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Rick Macdonald wrote:

 On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
 
   So, does anyone know if and where I could find GNOME 1.0 as a Debian
   package, by any chance? I could recompile the source, but I already have
   indeed possible.
  
  Are you using apt? Good. Then, put the following line in your
  /etc/apt/sources.list file (in addition to the existing lines):
  
  deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
  unstable main
 
 What's the difference between the above and:
 
 deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main
 
 What should one use for a slink system?

Good point. The one I gave is for slink. The other is for potato.

Thanks. Syrus.

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED]UCSD Physics Dept.

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Rick Macdonald]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:

   deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
   unstable main
  
  What's the difference between the above and:
  
  deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main
  
  What should one use for a slink system?
 
 Good point. The one I gave is for slink. The other is for potato.

Ah. Now that I have that fixed, what's the proper place for enlightenment
0.15 debs for slink? The following contains dependencies on glibg6 =2.1
so I think it must be for potato:

deb http://www.debian.org/~bma enlightenment/

...RickM...

Re: GNOME 1.0 .deb package?

[Syrus Nemat-Nasser]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Rick Macdonald wrote:

 On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
 
deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
unstable main
   
   What's the difference between the above and:
   
   deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main
   
   What should one use for a slink system?
  
  Good point. The one I gave is for slink. The other is for potato.
 
 Ah. Now that I have that fixed, what's the proper place for enlightenment
 0.15 debs for slink? The following contains dependencies on glibg6 =2.1
 so I think it must be for potato:
 
 deb http://www.debian.org/~bma enlightenment/

The enlightenment debs are in the slink GNOME staging area as well.
Everything should be fine. It's working for me as my default desktop
environment for work.

Thanks. Syrus.

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED]UCSD Physics Dept.

Re: GNOME 1.0

[Syrus Nemat-Nasser]

On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Just curious, how's the .debs of GNOME v1.0 coming?

I'm using it for work (keeping my old desktop config around as a backup of
course). I like it fine. To try it out, install slink (Debian 2.1) and
then add the following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list file:

deb http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink \
unstable main 


Thanks. Syrus.

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED]UCSD Physics Dept.

GNOME 1.0

[MallarJ]

Just curious, how's the .debs of GNOME v1.0 coming?

-Jay

gnome 1.0.x libs

[Micha Feigin]

I tried to get the elightenment window manager 0.15, only it needs the
libs for gnome ver 1.0.x (i think its 1.0.2) , among others
libgnome32 1.0.2-1
libgnomeui32 
imlib1 1.9.4-1
libcapplet0 1.9.3-4
etc.
I can't seem to find these libs anywhere.
If anyone knows where i may find them, or how to install the sources so
dpkg recognises them (I saw that package guitar under potato needs some
of them, but they didn't appear anywhere in the distribution)
I got some other packges also that need these libs.
also the older versions are now broken because i tried to get the libs
from another source (rpm) so now gnome won't work at all.
Please help
thanx

if you can please also answear to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , because
netscape also gives me a lot of problems due to the missing packages so
i don't know if i'll be able to read the mailing list
Thanx again
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: gnome 1.0.x libs

[Alan Bailward]

 I tried to get the elightenment window manager 0.15, only it needs the
 libs for gnome ver 1.0.x (i think its 1.0.2) , among others
 libgnome32 1.0.2-1
 libgnomeui32 
 imlib1 1.9.4-1
 libcapplet0 1.9.3-4
 etc.
 I can't seem to find these libs anywhere.
 If anyone knows where i may find them, or how to install the sources so
 dpkg recognises them (I saw that package guitar under potato needs some
 of them, but they didn't appear anywhere in the distribution)
 I got some other packges also that need these libs.
 also the older versions are now broken because i tried to get the libs
 from another source (rpm) so now gnome won't work at all.

Micha,

I had the same problem a while ago, and was helped by a couple of people on
the list.  Here are the 2 lines from my /etc/apt/sources.list, I don't know
if both are needed, but it seems to work for me(tm).

http://www.debian.org/~jim/debian-gtk-gnome/gnome-stage-slink unstable main
deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main

BTW, perhaps send what sucess you have to the list, I've had some problems
with things like the gnome control center and panel applets, and am
interested to see if you are more successful.

---
Alan Bailward
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.northco.net/alan
Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts
most subtly on the human will.
-- Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Richard Lyon]

 
 Couldn't .debs that aren't 100% at least go into potato? That's what
 unstable is for isn't it ?

Why is there this pent up frustration for always having the absolute latest 
versions of software? I would have thought it may be a good idea to wait a few 
weeks to see if others report that there major goofs. Quality is very very 
important. We do want debian to be more reliable than windows 98. Unstable does 
not means completely untested, otherwise it would be a rather worthless 
minefield.

If you really are so keen you could just download the source code and compile 
it. This is not a difficult option and by identifying any bugs you would be 
helping the debian community.

I'll just wait, hoping that the debian people do a good job. A few weeks or so 
is not a long period of time. The people doing this work are not getting paid, 
so they probablely only have a limited time each day to do this work.

Regards 

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Richard Lyon]

 The staging area is not a secret, it is publically available, too, for
 developers and testers. Check the dtk-gnome mailling list archiv if you are
 interested (or devel-announce).
 

And by testing this you make a significant worthwhile contribution to the 
Debian project.

Whoops ... gnome 1.0.2 is just released. Here we go again.

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 10:37:29AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In a message dated 3/10/99 6:44:38 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes:
 
  Are there Gnome 1.0 debs yet?
   I haven't tried Gnome yet. 1.0 seems like the place to start.
 
 Ya know, I don't want to offend any of the developers or anything, but I'm
 curious about something... Why is it that Debian is always the last to get
 packages for any given product?  When KDE came out, rpms were right around the
 corner.  This seems to be an ongoing trend...  Is it just because the Debian
 group is so quality concious?

It's a non-technical difference in the way packages are built in these
sorts of cases. The Red Hat packages are built by anyone who cares to;
they can go on Red Hat's unofficial rpms site no problem. Debian packages
on the other hand are usually only built by Debian developers; that is, 
people who aren't developers don't tend to build debs and upload them;
unofficial debs are rare.

In the case of KDE, the RPMs were probably built by the KDE team themselves.
The debs might be left to the Debian developer, who may or may not be
part of the KDE team. Also, it takes a day or so for packages to appear
in the archive once they are uploaded.

I think the end result is a higher quality product. The lack of
unofficial debs is not a shortcoming at all, imho.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD  [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Syrus Nemat-Nasser]

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

 The staging area is not a secret, it is publically available, too, for
 developers and testers. Check the dtk-gnome mailling list archiv if you are
 interested (or devel-announce).

Hi Marcus,

Do you intend to develop installation instructions for slink users who
wish to run GNOME 1.x.x without upgrading the rest of their systems to
potato? [I realize that this would be secondary to getting a working group
of packages.] I suspect that quite a few programs outside of GNOME would
need to be upgraded as well unless gtklib 1.2 and such can coexist with
the older versions in slink. Any thoughts?

Thanks. Syrus.

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syrus Nemat-Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED]UCSD Physics Dept.

Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Rick Macdonald]

Are there Gnome 1.0 debs yet?

I haven't tried Gnome yet. 1.0 seems like the place to start.

-- 
...RickM...

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[MallarJ]

In a message dated 3/10/99 6:44:38 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

 Are there Gnome 1.0 debs yet?
  
  I haven't tried Gnome yet. 1.0 seems like the place to start.
  

Ya know, I don't want to offend any of the developers or anything, but I'm
curious about something... Why is it that Debian is always the last to get
packages for any given product?  When KDE came out, rpms were right around the
corner.  This seems to be an ongoing trend...  Is it just because the Debian
group is so quality concious?

-Jay

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Ya know, I don't want to offend any of the developers or anything, but I'm
 curious about something... Why is it that Debian is always the last to get
 packages for any given product?  When KDE came out, rpms were right around the
 corner.  This seems to be an ongoing trend...  Is it just because the Debian
 group is so quality concious?
 

It is. There are always rpms sooner, but those rpms are invariably broken
in minor ways, and since there are no official rpms and you don't know
what the system they were built on was like, there's no guarantee they
will work at all. Often dependencies are wrong and the like, and RPM's
dependency tracking isn't as good to begin with.

The Debian packages are maintained officially and strictly quality
controlled by Debian policy and the lintian script. Also all the
Gtk/Gnome/Imlib etc. packages are being prepared together in a staging
area to be sure they work together properly.

It's worth the wait, in short.

Havoc

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[sjb]

Couldn't .debs that aren't 100% at least go into potato? That's what
unstable is for isn't it ?

Regards
Sarel Botha

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Havoc Pennington wrote:

 
 On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  Ya know, I don't want to offend any of the developers or anything, but I'm
  curious about something... Why is it that Debian is always the last to get
  packages for any given product?  When KDE came out, rpms were right around 
  the
  corner.  This seems to be an ongoing trend...  Is it just because the Debian
  group is so quality concious?
  
 
 It is. There are always rpms sooner, but those rpms are invariably broken
 in minor ways, and since there are no official rpms and you don't know
 what the system they were built on was like, there's no guarantee they
 will work at all. Often dependencies are wrong and the like, and RPM's
 dependency tracking isn't as good to begin with.
 
 The Debian packages are maintained officially and strictly quality
 controlled by Debian policy and the lintian script. Also all the
 Gtk/Gnome/Imlib etc. packages are being prepared together in a staging
 area to be sure they work together properly.
 
 It's worth the wait, in short.
 
 Havoc
 
 
 
 -- 
 Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]  /dev/null
 
 
 

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Christopher J. Morrone]

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 In a message dated 3/10/99 6:44:38 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes:
 
  Are there Gnome 1.0 debs yet?
   
   I haven't tried Gnome yet. 1.0 seems like the place to start.
   
 
 Ya know, I don't want to offend any of the developers or anything, but I'm
 curious about something... Why is it that Debian is always the last to get
 packages for any given product?  When KDE came out, rpms were right around the
 corner.  This seems to be an ongoing trend...  Is it just because the Debian
 group is so quality concious?

I don't really think that KDE is the best example.  For quite a while, KDE
wasn't packaged because of the licensing issues.

Keep in mind that there is a whole staff of full time people working on
Red Hat, while Debian developers are volunteering their scarce free time.

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Noah L. Meyerhans]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:

 I don't really think that KDE is the best example.  For quite a while, KDE
 wasn't packaged because of the licensing issues.
 

Actually, those licensing issues are still not resolved.  The latest kde
version uses Qt 1.42, which still uses the closed source license.  The KDE
debs are all packaged by one guy from the KDE development group.  But they
definitely aren't a good example of Debian packaging slowness, because
they aren't official .debs.  Packages that are part of the official
distribution would make better examples for the sake of this argument.

 Keep in mind that there is a whole staff of full time people working on
 Red Hat, while Debian developers are volunteering their scarce free time.
 

Actually, that's not the issue in this case.  The VAST majority of RPMs
out there were not packaged by anybody on the staff at Redhat.  That's why
they are so often inconsistant in quality, and why they're everywhere.
Redhat has a larger user base than Debian, and a large number of free
software developers use it.  

It's easy to create an rpm file, and a lot of people will write some
software, then rpm it for distribution.  But they don't necessarily test
it on any system other than their own, and they are not required to adhere
to a strict file system layout.  There's no guarantee that the rpm they
make will work on ANY system other than their own.  That's not the case
with any of the 2000-odd packages in the official Debian distribution.
Debian takes the time to get things right, which is why we have to wait so
long for a new release.  Redhat just takes a bunch of rpms, throws them on
a CD, and hopes everything works.  Often times it doesn't.  (that's of
course a bit of an exaggeration, Redhat deserves more credit than I gave
them.)

I bet Debian has MANY more official developers working on it than Redhat
does, even if we are volunteers.

noah

  PGP public key available at
  http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/home/httpd/n/nmeyerha/mail.html
  or by 'finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]'

  This message was composed in a 100% Microsoft free environment.


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNubN1IdCcpBjGWoFAQE18wP/foWAqyNH/1NKKCyn1bDkTGuy0TJ7yMSP
jzcRkWKuqSg0ehCbH3ClJMuk73wKlsQ8D7Fl7YWnyHThE86bLPfKPYEN8Pb3pqJL
HjiRCZmYzW0TItEVQvP8WuVnFy9lK0+pAgR+Hkg6FjGm+OqG66iWV1tPiTkHhPpX
X0o6G6EEYmY=
=Euc0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Gnome 1.0 debs?

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 07:40:06PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Couldn't .debs that aren't 100% at least go into potato? That's what
 unstable is for isn't it ?

We had this before, and it was unconvenient at least because of the
complicated net of dependencies. The gnome stuff depends on many libraries,
and if I compile something with a newer library they might be incompatible
and your whole installation goes nuts and everything.

It is much better for everyone if we compile a full set of packages in a
staging area first and then move the whole set to potato once it looks
ready.

The staging area is not a secret, it is publically available, too, for
developers and testers. Check the dtk-gnome mailling list archiv if you are
interested (or devel-announce).

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org   finger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann  GNUhttp://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/   PGP Key ID 36E7CD09