Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] updating to latest Xorg

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] updating to latest Xorg
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:47:39 +1300

Message from Steven
===================
Sindi wrote:
>
> Slackwares after 11 need a 2.6 kernel

That's why I am using Slackware 11 as my
platform.

> and have packages i would like to use.

Have you tried linuxpackages? Thay have
lots of packages for Slackware 11.

> I agree it is better than Firefox 1.5 for
> most things. Some sites work with Firefox
> not Seamonkey.

So far I haven't found any with Seamonkey 1.1.19.
If you are talking about using Seamonkey 1.1.17
at secure sites, the following advisory might
interest you:
--------------------------------------------------
Starting from SeaMonkey 1.1.18, the same library
for secure connections as in Firefox 3 is used.
SeaMonkey is following the specification correctly
now and was not doing it correctly before.
--------------------------------------------------

> Can you get Seamonkey 2 working with BL2?

Seamonkey 2 requires gtk2 which I have not installed.
My BL2 installation has been upgraded with libraries
(etc.) from Slackware 11. Seamonkey 1.1.19 ran
perfectly on that platform.

> Some sites won't work with Seamonkey 1.19.

I thought you were using Seamonkey 1.1.17.

> Please provide details of how you installed gtk2
> and Flash if it was not straightforward.

I have never installed gtk2, so I have no personal
experience with flash 10, but I have used flash 9
(gtk1) with Firefox. Looking at the flash 10
system requirements, it appears that it will work
on a Slackware 11 foundation (with gtk2 installed).

> >> Cardbus driver modules
>
> They would not compile for me with SW11 gcc and
> glibc.

Did you install the full glibc 2.3.6 libraries?
Did you install the full gcc 3.4.6 package (using
the Slackware package tool)?

> I could not manage to compile a 2.6 kernel that worked.
> Can you?

I have no interest in the 2.6 kernel. It would
take hours to download the sourcecode (I'm still
on dial-up).

> The compilation procedure is different than for 2.4.

Another reason not to use a 2.6 kernel.

Cheers,
Steven




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page