Re: How to transition to G++ 3.2 wthout any breakage

[Yenar Calentaure]

Luca Barbieri wrote:
HAHAHAHAHA.  No.
.__.
_|doogie|_ <-- dpkg hat
No because of technical reasons, or because it's too much work?
IMHO: No because it is unclean/ugly/fragile/hacky/total mess/etc.
IMHO since changing library filenames breaks compatibility with other
distributions, this is the only way to allow installation of old
packages (that, still IMHO, must absolutely not be broken).
All c++ sarge packages will be compiled with g++ 3.2 (AFAIK). All C++ 
code needs to be recompiled to work (still it's better than megahacks 
affecting whole distribution IMHO). If you want, you can put old 
libstdc++ and old (locally compiled) binaries somewhere in /usr/local 
and create wrappers by hand (or write wrapper generator - shouldn't be 
hard).

--
[ Yenar Calentaure | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://yenar.host.sk ]

Re: Migration to /usr/share/doc

[Yenar Calentaure]

Giorgio Mandolfo wrote:
Hi everybody.
This may be quite stupid or frivolous. :-)
I have noticed the migration of the extra documentation files from 
/usr/doc/ to /usr/share/doc/ (as also describes the Debian Policy 
chapter 13.3).
I am trying not to use exclusively the simbolic link to /usr/share/doc/ 
but to look directly to the new folder.
Well, I there is a (very) simple 
and boring fact: the  completion locks because there is 
/usr/share/doc-base/ too.

I searched for some explanations about it in the Debian Policy, even if 
its name is self-explanatory. I did not find anything.
Couri

So my questions/proposals are:
- Why this directory exists? And what is it about?
This is repository for dwww and dhelp online help packages AFAIK. If you 
launch dhelp (and have appropriate documentation installed), you will 
probably find some docs about how it is supposed to work. Sorry but I 
don't know name of the package with documentation about doc-base :(.

- Is it possible to move their contents to /usr/share/doc/ allowing a 
faster search through the filesystem?
Just hit  instead of tab, one keystroke isn't THAT much :). 
Renameing the directory could solve your problem, but is it worth one 
keystroke per typing /usr/share/doc/whatever?

Thanks for reading,
Giorgio
[I cc it to debian-devel]
___
Class, that's the only thing that counts in life.  Class.
Without class and style, a man's a bum; he might as well be dead.
-- "Bugsy" Siegel


--
-------
Yenar Calentaure
 mail: yenar(at)host.sk
homepage: http://yenar.host.sk
---
The universe is entering maintenance mode in 2 minutes. Please logout.
 -- Your administrator
---

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Yenar Calentaure]

Jérôme Marant wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:

I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter
for linux apps and desktops...

  I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme really
  matters; RH and MDK have very nice default desktop themes but Debian
  doesn't have any. I know that they hired graphic artists.
  AFAIK, we don't have any. I'm sure we could find volonteers.
Why the need of distribution theme? Every other major distribution 
having its own look, Debian can differentiate itself by sticking with 
the upstream look :>. KDE3.1 look nice out of the box (and GNOME2 
probably too, haven't seen that).

Enough rambling, i have some real proposal for the situation, though (:
We can provide debian wallpaper/logo/icon etc. (it is already done 
AFAIK). Probably packages like kde-gnome-theme and gnome-kde-theme 
providing look of gnome to kde and vice versa is good idea. Also, 
gnome-debian-theme and kde-debian-theme are good idea, if there is 
someone with skill and time to create them.

Packaging gnome icons for use with kde (and the other way around, too), 
should be times easier than creating new set from the ground up. 
Remaking color schemes should be quite easy, too. The widget styles are 
the hard part... This could use some help from KDE and GNOME developers, 
but i'm not very optimistic about that.

These can be part of respective kde/gnome metapackages. The metapackage 
can then provide debconf question about default look (eg. for KDE: KDE 
native look&feel, GNOME look&feel, Debian look&feel (if someone created 
such a package)). You can even make the Debian entry default ;).

As of the menu, there is already infrastructure in place. With the 
ongoing menu system rewrite, this will get even better. The KDE and 
GNOME packagers can back up the default menu somewhere (to make it 
available for ones who like it better) and make debian menu default. The 
debconf question is the way to go here, too.

OTOH the user should be in charge of menu layout... The second possible 
solution (i can think of), is to make menu system capable of building 
KDE-like menu structure, GNOME-like one, etc. I don't know if this is 
possible with Debian menu package, but if not, it is worth consideration 
IMHO.

Please, please, please, do not change the default without asking user 
first. Debian users tend to know what they want.

  My 2 cents.
  Cheers, 

my .02 euro :)
cheers
yenar
--
-------
Yenar Calentaure
mail: yenar(at)host.sk
homepage: http://yenar.host.sk
---
The universe is entering maintenance mode in 2 minutes. Please logout.
 -- Your administrator
---