Xubuntu daily build report
Cody A.W. Somerville
cody-somerville at ubuntu.com
Wed Sep 17 18:27:20 UTC 2008
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Eddy <hpp3 at lavabit.com> wrote:
> "Cody A.W. Somerville" <cody-somerville at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> (17/09/2008 04:47)
> > > -gpicview replaced Ristretto? What was wrong with Ristretto? (grr...
> > > more gnome creeping in...)
> > How is gpicview anymore "gnome" than Ristretto is?
> > Ristretto dependencies: libatk1.0-0 (>= 1.20.0), libc6 (>= 2.4),
> > (>= 1.5.18), libdbus-1-3 (>= 1.1.1), libdbus-glib-1-2 (>= 0.74),
> > libexo-0.3-0 (>= 0.3.4), libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0), libgtk2.0-0 (>=
> > libpango1.0-0 (>= 1.20.1), libthunar-vfs-1-2 (>= 0.9.0), libxfce4util4
> > 4.4.2), libxfcegui4-4 (>= 4.4.2)
> > gpicview dependencies: libatk1.0-0 (>= 1.20.0), libc6 (>= 2.6.1-1),
> > libcairo2 (>= 1.4.0), libfontconfig1 (>= 2.4.0), libglib2.0-0 (>=
> > libgtk2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0), libjpeg62, libpango1.0-0 (>= 1.19.0), libx11-6,
> > libxcomposite1 (>= 1:0.3-1), libxcursor1 (>> 1.1.2), libxdamage1 (>=
> > libxext6, libxfixes3 (>= 1:4.0.1), libxi6, libxinerama1, libxrandr2 (>=
> > 2:1.2.0), libxrender1
> Ok, I see my mistake. I SWEAR the first time I opened gpicview the
> 'About' box said it was a "Lightweight image viewer for Gnome".
> I must be getting dyslexic as well as nearsighted...
> Besides that, I thought Ristretto was a good fit because of it being
> in the Xfce "family".
The version I have from Hardy says Lightweight image viewer for LXDE.
And no, just because an application declares it self as an Xfce application
doesn't mean it makes it better than any other application.
> > > gpicview also has some security bugs which you guys probably already
> > > know about, but I wouldn't want to be too hasty:
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495968)
> > > Is the version in *buntu the patched one?
> > Yes. Your link reports bug marked fix in version 0.1.9-2. *
> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/gpicview shows Intrepid at 0.1.9-2.*
> Ok. The conversation at the end of that thread led me to believe that
> it may have been mistakenly marked.
> > > -The new wallpaper looks sweet. Great job [insert artist name here]!
> > I don't think we've changed the wallpaper yet since Hardy.
> *edvard turns head sideways*
> weird, maybe cause it's on a different monitor. This one looks similar
> but smoother and more "glowy"
Can you take a screenshot?
> > > -Audacious. Mixed feelings...
> > > I guess I'm just not one for tiny skinnable media players. At least it
> > > doesn't look like a Winamp clone out of the box, I'll look forward to
> > > giving this one a workout.
> > Is there another music player that you think might be a better fit? If
> > which one?
> I'll agree one hundred percent with Vincent's reply to this one.
> All those skinnable players look funky and 'out-of-place' to me and
> always have, especially when you have to view it at double size due to
> having a high-resolution monitor (hmm... imagine a player that uses
> svg skins...).
> I do admit it's nice to have a separate media player. Totem's labeling
> as a "Movie Player" always threw me off...
> I don't know which one to suggest, honestly. I'll probably get used to
> Hell, I was happy with Xfmedia (despite xine lib bugs...), who am I to
> complain? :P
So, do you have a suggestion? :)
> > > I'll also post my box specs and some benchmarks and if anybody's
> > > interested or if anyone has suggestions of bugs to look for, let me
> > > know.
> > I'd be very interested. You can see some work I did on it at
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/Development/Performance
> Will do.
> BTW- I noticed a few more things last night.
> -First start of Mozilla Firefox started up with two tabs of ubufox
> startpage that were both blank and a tab of the license page.
> Subsequent runs brought up only one ubufox page. Still blank.
What build was this? What is the homepage set as? I take it you're connected
to the internet when you try this?
> -I opened a terminal and grep'd dmesg for errors. Apparently uvesafb
> crapped out at some point because it couldn't find v86d.
> A cursory web search looks like uvesafb has replaced vesafb as the
> default framebuffer driver (confirm?) which depends on v86d
> (http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/fb/uvesafb.txt). Doing a
> web search for this bug came up with a healthy handful of reports so I
> assume it's being worked on.
> Either way, I assume that one's way upstream...
> That's all I have for now, I'm downloading today's daily for more
> testing tonight...
> xubuntu-devel mailing list
> xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
Cody A.W. Somerville
Software Systems Release Engineer
Custom Engineering Solutions Group
Canonical OEM Services
Email: cody.somerville at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xubuntu-devel