no gnome-terminal package in sarge?

[Joe Buck]

Hi,

I recently upgraded a woody box to sarge and found that there is
no gnome-terminal package in testing, although there is one in unstable.
What's the story here?

As a stopgap I am setting things up to use multi-gnome-terminal, but
this looks strange.

The sid version is gnome2, and the rest of testing's gnome is 1.4, so
it wouldn't really work to try to move forward.  But keeping the
woody gnome-terminal doesn't work either, because some other package
claims to replace it (but does not).

Please cc me.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: no gnome-terminal package in sarge?

[Joe Buck]

I wrote:
> > I recently upgraded a woody box to sarge and found that there is
> > no gnome-terminal package in testing, although there is one in unstable.
> > What's the story here?

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:00:06PM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
> You can get it from snapshot.debian.net:
>  
> 1.4.0.6-5 was the last version to make it into testing.

Thanks!  I installed it.

Any idea why it was removed from testing without being replaced by a newer
one?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

inefficiencies in apt-get update

[Joe Buck]

apt-get update is annoyingly slow for modem-based users, and also puts an
unnecessarily heavy
load on the servers, for the common case where only a small change is made
to the Packages
or Source file for a part of the distribution.  I just sucked down a
megabyte-sized file to
find that one line had changed, for a package I don't care about.  Why
can't apt-get update
send diffs to these large files rather than sending whole files?

One possibility would be to just build the thing on top of anonymous CVS. 
CVS already knows
how to just send the changes to a file.

Re: Diagnosing poor performance

[Joe Buck]

> My laptop has a 4MB vid card, 64 MB RAM, 120MB swap and a Pii 400
> celeron processor.

> I'm running enlightenment with konqueror for file management, galeon for
> web and evolution for mail.

> Performance is appalling.  Konqueror takes 13 seconds to launch.  Galeon
> takes 10 seconds.  Evolution takes 15 seconds. Even Eterm takes over 10
> seconds. Switching between apps takes forever and involves screens
> freezing.

You don't have enough memory, in part because you're running an app that
needs almost all the KDE libraries (konqueror) and an app that needs
almost all the Gnome libraries (Evolution) along with a bloated window
manager that doesn't share that much code with either.  The startup times
seem slow, but are you starting them all at the same time or in series?
Hard to believe that 64M isn't a lot of memory, but for this choice of
apps it isn't.