Hi Stephen J. Carpenter; unless Mutt is confused, you wrote: > > anyway... have you downloaded it? is it glibc or libc5?
Yup, I did download it and it is compiled on a RH5.1 machine against glibc. > If it is compiled for linux it SHOULD work (of course there are always those > situations where things are setup or compiled weird)... > I see NO reason why it wouldn't work. > > The ONLY things AFAIK that dpkg and debina policy garauntees will NOT be > destroyed without your permission are "conffiles" binary executables are > NOT conffiles... > so the next tim,e you install xbase it will write over xfs..whgether it > is new or not. > > Just put it in /usr/local/bin and it will be safe there... > copy the xfs file from /etc/init.d to xfsft and edit it to use > your new binary (and disable the xfs one) > then use update-rc.d xfsft defaults > to install the sym links and bring it up on boot...beyond that just configure > its fonts et al. > Note: I have never used xfsft, but I have used xfstt and xfs ...both work > well enough for my needs. > The real reason I packaged xfstt and not xfsft originally was that it is based > so tightly on XF86 source...I would have had to split out the source tree for > xfs myself...thats a pain (esp if xfsft gets a patch...or if xfs gets a > differnt fix/patch)... Thank you for the step-by-step procedure. I am planning on trying that this coming weekend. If you want an update I will post my experience here. > Not to mention xbase has xfs built in...it was a mess,.... > maybe once X is broken up a bit (a goal of the X Strike Force ) it > will be easier to package xfsft > > -Steve Yes, I've read about that. It is a big project esp. since the X is coming out every so often. And maybe it can be shown that xfstt is a better solution anyways. Again, thank you much damir
