Galeon for Warty (was:: librrd0-dev missing from Ubuntu)

[Martin Maney]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 04:12:22PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 05:10:34PM -0500, Martin Maney wrote:
> > Guess the next experiment will be finding out if it really needs that
> > tight spec on the moz-dev version...
> 
> It usually does.

Ah.  Since I've (nearly?) always been building backports, I don't think
I've ever run into an upper version limit that affected me.

> It sounds like we have mismatched versions of mozilla and galeon, and
> the best thing to do is probably to update galeon from unstable. If
> you could build and test the galeon source package from Debian, it
> should be a simple matter to update it.

I've gotten as far as building it, but may not get to testing until
tomorrow.  The fetching was a bit interesting.  Package search (galeon,
all dists) reports 1.3.17-2 in unstable, but the package page for
unstable has 1.3.14a all over it - that's earlier than what's in
testing!  1.3.17-2 is in fact available through the obvious
modification of the non-working links to 1.3.14a that are on the
unstable package page.  So it was 1.3.17-2 that I built, and will test
it later.

<time passes>

Okay, just as well maybe that I didn't send it.  1.3.17-2 seems to work
pretty well.  It's got a few annoying quirks (tabs open (for
middle-click = open in new tab) to the right of all other tabs, not of
the tab in which the link is, as I am accustomed to), but it has most
of the things I most missed in Firefox and... wait, it wouldn't be
approriate to say "it's worked everywhere so far" without including
Ubuntu, would it?  :-)  Okay, it works.  Navigates real.com far enough
to get to the player download.  Passes somewhat more than a basic smoke
test for me.

-- 
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country
the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit
out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts
are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future,
even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law.  -- RAH