John Duncan wrote:
> The subject says it all. I am running Poplog on Ubuntu Linux and
> when I next upgrade I will go from XFree86 to XOrg for an X Server.
>
> So is anyone already using Poplog on a distribution using XOrg
> and is it alright ?
I know nothing about Ubuntu (a version of debian??) but I recently
upgraded my desktop machine from redhat 9 to Fedora Core 3, which now
uses Xorg instead of XFree86, and everything just worked.
So I don't think you have anything to worry about on that count.
Incidentally, my machine also had its CPU and motherboard upgraded to
athlon64 after my old AMD CPU died. I have not yet installed the 64bit
version of FC3, so I am not yet in a position to test the 64bit AMD
poplog in earnest. I hope that will happen soon. There was only one
residual bug as far as I know, namely using a mouse to close a poplog
window crashed poplog instead of just closing the window. The fix
should be very simple -- I hope.
Another interesting thing. When I relinked 32 bit poplog V15.6 on the
new machine I got smaller executables.
Linked on redhat 9 on pentium 4
1803692 Mar 22 18:43 basepop11
1300274 Jan 18 11:02 corepop
Linked on Fedora core 3 on AMD64
1797790 May 15 23:30 basepop11
1294332 May 17 12:14 corepop
Does anyone know why the executables are smaller. Is this a result of
changing to a 2.6 kernel, with new linker, etc.
I have not checked whether the version of poplog linked on the 2.6
kernel runs on a 2.4 kernel. The other way round there seems to be no
problem.
Aaron
|