[SOLVED] MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

Message
Author
User avatar
fehlix
Developer
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:09 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#11 Post by fehlix »

Stevo wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:23 pm Hmmm...I did a bigger set of changes.

Does this version fix it?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FxCv9 ... 4KnDGr7WWJ
Not realy: I do not see a difference in the start screen, which is the main show stopper.
xfburn-0.5.5-stevo1.png
The upper picture is live running your version.
below the screen dump of the orignal unpatched and my pachtched version.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB

User avatar
entropyfoe
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:42 am

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#12 Post by entropyfoe »

Steveo,

Wow you are an expert, able to dig into the debian stuff and the translation strings.

This is what powers MX linux above and beyond many distros.
(like one earlier poster...I to am a k3b guy)
Thanks :cool:
Asus PRIME X470-PRO
AMD Ryzen 3600X (12 threads @ 3.8 GHz)
32 Gig DDR4 3600 (Crucial CL 16)
Nvidia GeForce GT 710
Samsung 970 NVMe nvme0n1 P1-3=MX-23, P4=testing
Samsung 980 NVMe =1TB Data, plus 2TB WD =backups
on-board ethernet & sound

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12837
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#13 Post by Stevo »

The Debian maintainers are far more expert; I'm just wading where they are Olympic-class swimmers.

OK, try this rebuild:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EyQmC ... gXhdAgKh96

User avatar
fehlix
Developer
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:09 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#14 Post by fehlix »

Stevo wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:25 pm The Debian maintainers are far more expert; I'm just wading where they are Olympic-class swimmers.

OK, try this rebuild:
Looks good:
xfburn-0.5.5-try2.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12837
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#15 Post by Stevo »

fehlix wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:44 pm
Stevo wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:25 pm The Debian maintainers are far more expert; I'm just wading where they are Olympic-class swimmers.

OK, try this rebuild:
Looks good:
xfburn-0.5.5-try2.png

OK, will send it up. I couldn't use your patch as is, since the source has no xfburn.po file, so I just made the same changes to the /po/de.po file in the source. I suppose the Debian developers all have fancy hdpi screens and don't see any problem with the widescreen version they have.

User avatar
fehlix
Developer
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:09 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#16 Post by fehlix »

Stevo wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:37 pm OK, will send it up. I couldn't use your patch as is, since the source has no xfburn.po file, so I just made the same changes to the /po/de.po file in the source. I suppose the Debian developers all have fancy hdpi screens and don't see any problem with the widescreen version they have.
Thanks Stevo.
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB

User avatar
MX-16_fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:09 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#17 Post by MX-16_fan »

@Stevo:
Stevo wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:23 pm (...) Does this version fix it?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FxCv9 ... 4KnDGr7WWJ
Thanks! Just tried it out. Takes very long to start (about 20 seconds), and unfortunately the window still has about 35% too much in width (which, however, is, as far as I remember, less too much than with the 0.5.4 version).

Before installation, Lintian complained:
W: xfburn: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version
N: 1 tag overridden (1 warning)

Lintian finished with exit status 0
What does that mean?


Greetings, Joe

User avatar
fehlix
Developer
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:09 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#18 Post by fehlix »

you need read two posts further down :p
+++
EDIT:
and you might just install the final fixed version 0.5.5-1~mx17+1 from with MXPI:

Code: Select all

LANG=C apt policy xfburn
xfburn:
  Installed: 0.5.5-1~mx17+1
  Candidate: 0.5.5-1~mx17+1
  Version table:
 *** 0.5.5-1~mx17+1 500
        500 https://ftp.fau.de/mxlinux-packages/mx/repo stretch/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     0.5.4-1 500
        500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB

User avatar
MX-16_fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:09 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#19 Post by MX-16_fan »

@fehlix:
fehlix wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:40 am you need read two posts further down :p
(...)
Thanks!



@Stevo:

Installs without issues and starts at a normal speed. This version resolves the window issue.

O.k. to mark this "SOLVED"? Or do you want me to wait until some more people have tested this version?

Thanks so much for this important fix! Do you have any means of reporting this to upstream?


Greetings, Joe

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12837
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: MX-17 package update request: Xfburn

#20 Post by Stevo »

I don't know if the other languages are affected, but the best way for German is to update the translation in the xfburn upstream source, whatever way they have set up to contribute--I think they have some git setup where the patch could be pushed up.. Debian also has a bug reporting setup, but any fixes usually just trickle down to the next release, instead of for stable users.

Locked

Return to “Package Requests/Status - MX 17/18”