The font configuration section of xorg shows a sed that clobbers
Bitstream Vera fonts. While DejaVu is clearly preferred, do we want to
remove the references to Bitstream?
I've been playing around with sed and came up with this:
sed -i \
's,\(^\t\t*\)\(familyBitstream
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
No, it's a lot of applications that together provide a windowing system.
It certainly isn't ONE application, since you can miss lots of it out
and still have functionality.
I disagree. It is a lot of *programs* and *libraries* that together
compose
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:05:59AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
The font configuration section of xorg shows a sed that clobbers
Bitstream Vera fonts. While DejaVu is clearly preferred, do we want to
remove the references to Bitstream?
I've been playing around with sed and came up with this:
sed
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:05:59AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
The font configuration section of xorg shows a sed that clobbers
Bitstream Vera fonts. While DejaVu is clearly preferred, do we want to
remove the references to Bitstream?
I've been playing around with sed and came up with
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
Sorry about this Bruce, but I think KDE is completely wrong to bundle
everything into these mega-packages. They are just a lot of programs
that are designed to work well together. That's the original UNIX
paradigm - lots of individually simple programs that
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:03:51PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
If you really want to have both fonts, please swap them (i.e.: Bitstream
should come first, otherwise it would never be used if not explicitly asked
for).
That was my point. If you want bitstream, ask for it. Otherwise,
Archaic wrote:
The font configuration section of xorg shows a sed that clobbers
Bitstream Vera fonts. While DejaVu is clearly preferred, do we want to
remove the references to Bitstream?
I've been playing around with sed and came up with this:
sed -i \
's,\(^\t\t*\)\(familyBitstream
On 5/19/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The font configuration section of xorg shows a sed that clobbers
Bitstream Vera fonts. While DejaVu is clearly preferred, do we want to
remove the references to Bitstream?
Sort of. DejaVu is Bitstream Vera but with more characters. It would
be
On 5/19/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:03:51PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
If you really want to have both fonts, please swap them (i.e.: Bitstream
should come first, otherwise it would never be used if not explicitly asked
for).
That was my point.
On 5/19/06, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or perhaps
'/(^\t\t*)Bitstream Vera(.*)/i\1DejaVu\3\n'
You need to match familyBitstream because there are other parts of
the file that match stringBitstream that don't have to do with the
generic names.
IIRC, -r or --regexp-extended means
On 5/19/06, Richard A Downing FBCS CITP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry about this Bruce, but I think KDE is completely wrong to bundle
everything into these mega-packages. They are just a lot of programs
that are designed to work well together. That's the original UNIX
paradigm - lots of
Hi
In the libxml page we have currently this note:
Some packages which utilize libxml2 (such as GNOME Doc Utils) need the Python
module installed to function properly.
But lbxml2 is a required dependency for GNOME Doc Utils (ScrollKeeper --
libxslt -- libxml2)
Based on that, I think that
On my system, the autoreconf command is breaking the libtool
installation of libdrm.so. The final installed libraries do not have
the .so suffix, so they can't be found at link time. Fortunately,
nothing has broken because I had the static library installed. Is
anyone else seeing this
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:11:16PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On my system, the autoreconf command is breaking the libtool
installation of libdrm.so. The final installed libraries do not have
the .so suffix, so they can't be found at link time. Fortunately,
nothing has broken because I had
On 5/19/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:11:16PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On my system, the autoreconf command is breaking the libtool
installation of libdrm.so. The final installed libraries do not have
the .so suffix, so they can't be found at link time.
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:49:20PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I didn't notice either. I installed it over a month ago. I just
noticed right now on a chance. If you installed libdrm, do you see
the library with or without the .so suffix?
I see it just as you saw it when using autoreconf.
El Viernes, 19 de Mayo de 2006 23:17, Randy McMurchy escribió:
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Manuel. We cannot
legitimately say the Python should be recommended. What if one doesn't
want to install GNOME (probably 95% of the readers)?
Then maybe how that optional blocks
On 5/19/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:49:20PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I didn't notice either. I installed it over a month ago. I just
noticed right now on a chance. If you installed libdrm, do you see
the library with or without the .so suffix?
I see
Looks like xfce is about to become a lot more difficult to write up. The
new file manager, Thunar, has this in its README:
Thunar depends on the following packages:
- perl 5.6 or above
- GTK+ 2.6.0 or above
- libexo 0.3.1.6 or above
- intltool 0.30 or above
- libpng12 1.2.0 or above
-
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I'm gonna wait a while longer to see if anyone (DJ) responds. Can
anyone confirm that the library builds without autoreconf? I checked
the list of symbols with nm in both cases and they were the same. I
think this is just broken autotools action.
Strange, I hadn't
On 5/19/06, DJ Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
./configure: line 19219: test: too many arguments
It needs to be regenerated...unfortuantely, the tarball was created with
older autotools as you suspected. Now to figure out why it's stripping
the so off, or maybe just fix the test in configure
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 5/19/06, DJ Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
./configure: line 19219: test: too many arguments
It needs to be regenerated...unfortuantely, the tarball was created with
older autotools as you suspected. Now to figure out why it's stripping
the so off, or maybe just fix
On 5/19/06, DJ Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if 2.0.1 is compatible with current Xorg or intended for
7.1.
Me neither. I was hoping without saying anything that if we can't
find a good fix for this, then at least xorg-7.1 is coming soon and we
can just move to the new version
23 matches
Mail list logo
