| 1 |
On Thursday 04 December 2008 16:50:20 Willie Wong wrote: |
| 2 |
> > It's a convention. No sane coder will ever release a package with version |
| 3 |
> > 9999, that is conventionally used by devs for their development stuff in |
| 4 |
> > cvs/svn/git/whatever, so vapier is just falling in line. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Not exactly what I meant. But your answer above already solve the |
| 7 |
> problem: in my opinion it is one thing to "fall in line" for each |
| 8 |
> package (in this case, enlightenment) separately, and a completely |
| 9 |
> different thing to just make the assumption that 9999 version numbers |
| 10 |
> will never be used (practical experience aside, of course :) ). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
yeah, those things that will "never happen" somehow always do happen. |
| 13 |
Like Y2k :-) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I will probably just suck it up and install e17 anyway: I use DR16 on |
| 16 |
> my stable desktop, but mostly fvwm on my testing laptop. I tried DR17 |
| 17 |
> a bit back on my laptop, but way back then something in the chain of |
| 18 |
> DR17-Xorg-my ATI video card doesn't like the eye candy. I'll give it |
| 19 |
> another try to see if it has miraculously gotten better. (Though I am |
| 20 |
> rather fond of my fvwm setup now; I just wish I can figure out a way |
| 21 |
> to get transparencies to play nice with some of the quirky stuff I |
| 22 |
> have in my configs.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
e17 doesn't like transparency and compiz-style effects. You can get it to work |
| 25 |
with the bling module or by using a compositing manager like xcompmgr or a |
| 26 |
derivative, but I found it wasn't exactly stable on nVidia. You may have |
| 27 |
better luck with ATI. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives