>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> > But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> > hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> > it's possible to keep it.
>
> Using t
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> > But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> > hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> > it's possible to keep it.
>
> Using
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> it's possible to keep it.
Using the -u flag with apt would have saved him as much as using = in
[Don't Cc me, I'm on the list]
>> Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
> xserver to be purged and replaced. Still, I want to be able to use
> 3.3.6-18 and utah packages for G400 and G200 - and they'
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 16:39]:
> > [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people.
>
> And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take
> the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> it's possible to keep it.
Using the -u flag with apt would have saved him as much as using = i
[Don't Cc me, I'm on the list]
>> Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
> xserver to be purged and replaced. Still, I want to be able to use
> 3.3.6-18 and utah packages for G400 and G200 - and they
Seth Arnold wrote:
Compared against Utah, at least the last time I looked at it, this is
really pretty quick and easy. Whether or not the features supported by
Utah are imporant enough to justify the work involved with getting it to
go is entirely dependent upon the applications one needs to ru
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL
subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you
please elaborate on this?
It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
xserver to be purged and repla
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 16:39]:
> > [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people.
>
> And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take
> the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P
Seth Arnold wrote:
> Compared against Utah, at least the last time I looked at it, this is
> really pretty quick and easy. Whether or not the features supported by
> Utah are imporant enough to justify the work involved with getting it to
> go is entirely dependent upon the applications one need
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL
> subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you
> please elaborate on this?
It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
xserver to be purged and r
Quoting Christopher C. Chimelis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> To end this long reply, I suggest this: compile your own Xserver and utah
> and install it in /usr/local until things work out to the point where they
> are usable again for your setup.
What I did was use the potato 3.3.6 xserver, because xser
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 16:39]:
> [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people.
And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take
the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P
> > Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to m
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does
> not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version
> most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' --
> something that once upon a time
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 14:40]:
> DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a
> better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but
> brushing Utah as a thing "in the past" is, at best, cluelessness. If
> *you* had trouble setting u
Quoting Christopher C. Chimelis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> To end this long reply, I suggest this: compile your own Xserver and utah
> and install it in /usr/local until things work out to the point where they
> are usable again for your setup.
What I did was use the potato 3.3.6 xserver, because xse
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 16:39]:
> [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people.
And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take
the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P
> > Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to
>> Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server.
As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL
subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you
please elaborate on this?
-
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
> their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
> 3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system.
Grmpf!
Do you know what DRI currently su
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does
> not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version
> most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' --
> something that once upon a tim
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 14:40]:
> DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a
> better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but
> brushing Utah as a thing "in the past" is, at best, cluelessness. If
> *you* had trouble setting
>> Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server.
As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL
subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you
please elaborate on this?
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
> their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
> 3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system.
Grmpf!
Do you know what DRI currently s
Hi all,
> Why have you made the upgrade path in X impossible? You can't run utah on
> 4.0 - yet you blindly install 4.0 over every system by dependcies. You
> don't even bother checking /proc to see what card is installed. A simple
> grep of /proc/pci shows I have an AGP G400, not a V3!
>
> I h
Hi all,
> Why have you made the upgrade path in X impossible? You can't run utah on
> 4.0 - yet you blindly install 4.0 over every system by dependcies. You
> don't even bother checking /proc to see what card is installed. A simple
> grep of /proc/pci shows I have an AGP G400, not a V3!
>
> I
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote:
> Who uses dselect anymore?
Call me "Mr. Stone-age", but I do still use dselect sometimes.
> This is about a package maintianers *duty to
> account for _likely conflicts_.
Ok, this gets me a bit upset. There are always unforeseen (or ju
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote:
> I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm
> pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I
> also think hiding behind the debian stand-by "it's not even supposed to
> work" is why packa
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Joshua Shagam wrote:
>Well, it was also a poor forethought for you to not issue a package hold on
>the XFree packages. It's easy enough to use dselect to request that a
>package not be upgraded... (hint: = key)
Who uses dselect anymore? This is about a package maintianers
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001211 23:29]:
> I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm
> pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I
> also think hiding behind the debian stand-by "it's not even supposed to
> work" is w
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:38:06AM -0500, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
>
> >Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
> >their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
> >3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
>Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
>their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
>3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system.
This is about poor forethought. I complained months
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Joshua Shagam wrote:
>It would be nice if the XFree 4 packages had a 'Conflicts: utah-glx' in it,
>but as has been said already, you ARE running Debian *usntable*, and you
>reap what you sow in that regard... don't take it out on Branden, please.
I told the X people months ag
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Joshua Shagam wrote:
>Well, it was also a poor forethought for you to not issue a package hold on
>the XFree packages. It's easy enough to use dselect to request that a
>package not be upgraded... (hint: = key)
Who uses dselect anymore? This is about a package maintianers
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001211 23:29]:
> I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm
> pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I
> also think hiding behind the debian stand-by "it's not even supposed to
> work" is
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote:
> Who uses dselect anymore?
Call me "Mr. Stone-age", but I do still use dselect sometimes.
> This is about a package maintianers *duty to
> account for _likely conflicts_.
Ok, this gets me a bit upset. There are always unforeseen (or j
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote:
> I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm
> pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I
> also think hiding behind the debian stand-by "it's not even supposed to
> work" is why pack
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:38:06AM -0500, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
>
> >Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
> >their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
> >3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
>Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
>their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
>3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system.
This is about poor forethought. I complained month
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Joshua Shagam wrote:
>It would be nice if the XFree 4 packages had a 'Conflicts: utah-glx' in it,
>but as has been said already, you ARE running Debian *usntable*, and you
>reap what you sow in that regard... don't take it out on Branden, please.
I told the X people months a
Not to mention that the G400 driver for XFree 4 has 3D acceleration as
well. It's currently kinda broken (stencils don't work at all (not even in
software fallback - they're borked), and there are some pretty icky
persistent texturing bugs, but it's usable. Just not very.
Personally, I'm annoyed
Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by ``I have a g400, not a v3'' --
last time I ran the dexter
- Forwarded message from Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
From: "Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: X upgrade policy
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:05:35 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [
Not to mention that the G400 driver for XFree 4 has 3D acceleration as
well. It's currently kinda broken (stencils don't work at all (not even in
software fallback - they're borked), and there are some pretty icky
persistent texturing bugs, but it's usable. Just not very.
Personally, I'm annoye
Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While
their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running
3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by ``I have a g400, not a v3'' --
last time I ran the dexter
- Forwarded message from Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: X upgrade policy
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:05:35 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To:
46 matches
Mail list logo
