| 1 |
If there are a lot of people in this situation maybe we should have |
| 2 |
a 3.3.6 ebuild. I am currently using 4.2.0., but without acceleration. |
| 3 |
I have been intending for some time to downgrade to 3.3.6, where I know |
| 4 |
how to get acceleration to work, but I never got around to it. In |
| 5 |
principle I am willing to do this, but I have only submitted ebuilds |
| 6 |
in the past for fairly simple packages, so I hope that someone more |
| 7 |
competent will volunteer. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 19:42, Gontran wrote: |
| 10 |
> > * Teardrop Sky (sky@×××××××××××××××××××××××××××.com) wrote: |
| 11 |
> > > [ XF 4.x not always usable ] |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > but i want to use XF 3.3.6, and how can i use it (installing from a |
| 14 |
> > > source or binary whatever works) and then after installing it, letting |
| 15 |
> > > the portage tree know that i *do* have X installed (so it will not |
| 16 |
> > > emerge XF4 because it might be a requirement for some other portage |
| 17 |
> > > package) |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > I hear this. I run 3.3.6, in order to get maximum performance out of my |
| 20 |
> > hardware setup. I did the dirty deed by hand, _after_ disapointment with |
| 21 |
> > XF 4.1, overwriting any binaries. So portage sees the X requirement is |
| 22 |
> > met. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Just curious, what kind of hardware setup is that? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Joachim Blaabjerg |
| 28 |
> styx@×××××.org |
| 29 |
> www.SuxOS.org |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
John Stalker |
| 33 |
Department of Mathematics |
| 34 |
Princeton University |
| 35 |
(609)258-6469 |
Archives