On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:22:35AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:44:40AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:52:12PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > "Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I've heard a couple times that the reason that gdm2
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:44:40AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:52:12PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > "Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I've heard a couple times that the reason that gdm2 is not in Sid is
> > > that it doesn't as yet build on all platforms.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:52:12PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> "Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:28, David Z Maze wrote:
> >> arief_mulya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > But I do notice that gdm is back to the gnome1.4 version. And the font
> >> >
"Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:28, David Z Maze wrote:
>> arief_mulya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > But I do notice that gdm is back to the gnome1.4 version. And the font
>> > become very ugly.
>>
>> The gdm is sid is the GNOME 1.4 gdm; I don't think
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 01:05:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 03:51:38PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:28:26AM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
> > > The gdm is sid is the GNOME 1.4 gdm; I don't think the GNOME 2.x gdm
> > > is there at all. (Not entirel
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 03:51:38PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:28:26AM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
> > The gdm is sid is the GNOME 1.4 gdm; I don't think the GNOME 2.x gdm
> > is there at all. (Not entirely sure why, though.) There are a few
> > bugs against the gdm package
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:28:26AM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
> arief_mulya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But I do notice that gdm is back to the gnome1.4 version. And the font
> > become very ugly.
>
> The gdm is sid is the GNOME 1.4 gdm; I don't think the GNOME 2.x gdm
> is there at all. (
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:28, David Z Maze wrote:
> arief_mulya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But I do notice that gdm is back to the gnome1.4 version. And the font
> > become very ugly.
>
> The gdm is sid is the GNOME 1.4 gdm; I don't think the GNOME 2.x gdm
> is there at all. (Not entirely
arief_mulya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear all.
>
>
> Thanks for the clues on GNOME2.
>
> But before I read the emails, I've already tried the ported GNOME2 for
> woody.
>
>
> It was working great.
> Until the time, I felt, It's the wrong thing. I should do it from the
> official place. A
arief_mulya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I do notice that gdm is back to the gnome1.4 version. And the font
> become very ugly.
The gdm is sid is the GNOME 1.4 gdm; I don't think the GNOME 2.x gdm
is there at all. (Not entirely sure why, though.) There are a few
bugs against the gdm packag
arief_mulya wrote:
But the funny thing is, dselect only shows me gnome 1.4.
Just a dumb question, have you updated available packages info in
dselect? Correct me if I am wrong, doing it with apt-get update doesn't
automatically update packages info in dselect. You got to update the
packages in
Dear all.
Thanks for the clues on GNOME2.
But before I read the emails, I've already tried the ported
GNOME2 for woody.
It was working great.
Until the time, I felt, It's the wrong thing. I should do it
from the official place. And so I apt-get remove gnome (all
the thing I previously install
12 matches
Mail list logo
