On Tue February 17 2004 03:07 pm, Chris Cheney wrote:
] The konq sidebar issue and the nsplugin issue both will be resolved in
] the next set of debs. I am starting to upload them to experimental now,
] but I am not sure when they will be complete.
Chris,
I'm as eager as the next guy, but I
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:22:52PM +0100, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> 5) looks like libnsplugin.la is missing in konqueror-nsplugins, and AFAIK,
> is needed for loading by the KDE plugin mechanism
The konq sidebar issue and the nsplugin issue both will be resolved in
the next set of debs. I am starti
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:15:27PM +0100, Anders Ellenshøj Andersen wrote:
> On Monday 16 February 2004 21:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > > Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000?
> > > I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE.
> >
> > Runs about as fast
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:34 am, Robert Tilley wrote:
> I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0
> existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the "unstable" or
> "testing" branches.
>
> I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While
On Monday 16 February 2004 21:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000?
> > I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE.
>
> Runs about as fast as a Pentium from what I've seen. Actually gets
> reasonably quick about it if you ove
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:11:28PM -0700, Doug Holland wrote:
> Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000?
Yes.
> I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE.
Runs about as fast as a Pentium from what I've see
5) looks like libnsplugin.la is missing in konqueror-nsplugins, and AFAIK,
is needed for loading by the KDE plugin mechanism
--
Sylvain Joyeux
On Monday 16 February 2004 08:26 am, Bruce Miller wrote:
> On February 16, 2004 10:34, Robert Tilley wrote:
> > I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0
> > existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the
> > "unstable" or "testing" branches.
> >
> > I will
I just installed the kde packages for sid from the non-official
repositories on people.debian.org
1) ksmserver didn't got installed automatically
2) missing a lot of MIME types (reported in .xsession-errors)
3) undefined symbols related to OpenSSL, all beggining with "kdecore
(KLibLoader): WAR
Searching the archives at lists.debian.org returns "no matches" instantly, no
matter what parameters I give it, so something is clearly not working there.
Google found a note to debian-kde from four months ago,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-kde/2003/debian-kde-200311/msg00086.html
where the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-02-16 17:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 04:47:03PM +0100, cobaco wrote:
> > stable has 3.2. available from the kde-mirros
>
> OK, but that's not debian, that's KDE backporting it for your
> convenience.
AFAIK these are done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 04:47:03PM +0100, cobaco wrote:
> stable has 3.2. available from the kde-mirros
OK, but that's not debian, that's KDE backporting it for your
convenience.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :
`. `'`
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:58:58 -0500
Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MB> On Monday 16 February 2004 10:44 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
MB> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote:
MB> > > I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE
MB> > > 3.2.0 exi
On February 16, 2004 10:44, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote:
> > I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE
> > 3.2.0 existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-02-16 16:44, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote:
> > I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE
> > 3.2.0 existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the
> > "un
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:40 am, Andreas Bauer wrote:
> Am Montag, 16. Februar 2004 15:52 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli:
>
>
> > you can install the candidate 3.2 packages now on testing or
> > unstable. see the debian wiki for instructions.
>
> Are there still the same problems open in this packa
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:44 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote:
> > I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE
> > 3.2.0 existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the
> > "unstable" or "testing" branches.
On February 16, 2004 10:34, Robert Tilley wrote:
> I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0
> existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the
> "unstable" or "testing" branches.
>
> I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While we
> all
Am Montag, 16. Februar 2004 15:52 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli:
> you can install the candidate 3.2 packages now on testing or
> unstable. see the debian wiki for instructions.
Are there still the same problems open in this packages? Especially
the Kmail filtering troubels?
Thanks
Andi
--
Who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote:
> I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE
> 3.2.0 existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the
> "unstable" or "testing" branches.
Except it's not.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:30:42PM +, Andr? Esteves wrote:
> Why don't you give proportional attention to the proportion of users in the
> respective architectures?
If you want to see the results of that thinking, go use Mandrake.
- --
.''`.
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:34 am, Robert Tilley wrote:
> I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0
> existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the "unstable" or
> "testing" branches.
>
> I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While
I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing
in the "stable" distribution while missing from the "unstable" or "testing"
branches.
I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While we all
greatly appreciate the improvements in KDE 3.2, having to
On Monday 16 February 2004 9:30 am, André Esteves wrote:
> Em Segunda, 16 de Fevereiro de 2004 07:26, o Adeodato Simó escreveu:
[...]
> > The reason for the delay is not KDE 3.2 itself taking long to be
> > prepared/compiled, but that it must wait until KDE 3.1.5 gets into
> > testing b
> AHHH!!!
> I will have not enough patience!!!
X'DDD
You are not the only one dreaming with kde packages X'DD
> Why don't you give proportional attention to the proportion of users in
> the
> respective architectures?
You can find i386 debian packages at ftp://ftp.kde.org
Em Segunda, 16 de Fevereiro de 2004 07:26, o Adeodato Simó escreveu:
> * Robert Tilley [Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:49:23 -0500]:
> > Could the more informed members of the list chime in with the current
> > progress of KDE 3.2.0 into unstable?
>
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-qt-kde/2004/debian-qt
Matej Cepl writes:
> On Sunday 15 of February 2004 09:27, Dominique Devriese wrote:
>> > ), or to KDE (because there is something broken with it)?
>>
>> So indeed, this is where the bug report should go.
> And it is where it went (bug 67950).
k, thanks
domi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-02-15 20:32, Bruce Miller wrote:
> I am looking for the simplest way to enter non-English characters from
> an English keyboard (e.g.Ã Ã Ã ). In Windows, it was never hard; there
> are few enough that I usually remembered the Alt+nnn keycode f
or indeed kghostview.
c
On Saturday 14 February 2004 8:10 pm, Antiphon wrote:
> If you hate it so much, why don't you use GSView?
>
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:33:08 -0500, Matej Cepl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > one of the many reasons I looked for KDE 3.2 was
> > introduction of kpd
* Robert Tilley [Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:49:23 -0500]:
> Could the more informed members of the list chime in with the current
> progress
> of KDE 3.2.0 into unstable?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qt-kde/2004/debian-qt-kde-200402/msg00160.html
> Does it really require such a length of time t
30 matches
Mail list logo
