UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Forum rules
LMDE 2 has reached end of support as of 1-1-2019
LMDE 2 has reached end of support as of 1-1-2019
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
My only complaint is that UP5 is taking 3 times longer to update than it would to install and configure a fresh copy of Mint. This isn't counting the download time.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Hi mark1mint, see this post. The driver is indeed in the repo.mark1mint wrote:I've read in the web feed a couple of days ago that UP5 was not yet safe if using the ATI fglrx proprietary driver,now looking at the current page the warning is gone,does this mean that the latest ATI driver is in UP5 now?
If so,would it be safe to upgrade now or there are known bugs for this driver?
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Just noticed here too that volume control was gone. In my case, mint-meta-debian-mate was already installed. So was mate-applets-common. But mate-applets was "rc" (removed, config kept), so it must've been removed during upgrade. Installing mint-applets manually resolved this issue (added volume control manually to notification area afterwards).zerozero wrote:just noticed that when you pointed outsobrus wrote: I can see that you've lost volume control too.
edit: the notification area is there but the volume icon is not (after applying the mate1.4 updates
edit2: installing mint-meta-debian-mate (as advised in the UP notes solved this issue)
Edit: I see now that mint-meta-debian-mate is updated, and replaces mint-media-gstreamer with mint-media-pulse.
---
An issue with mate-power-manager. Occasionally, after waking up from resume/hibernate, clicking the battery status indicator in notification area shows duplicate battery entries. And since I enabled notification of full charge, it would notify me that "batteries are fully charged" (plural), though I only have 1 battery. The problem is of course resolved with a reboot.
N.B.
Upon changing /etc/modprobe.d/i915-kms.conf from:
Code: Select all
options i915 modeset=1 i915_enable_rc6=1 i915_enable_fbc=1 lvds_downclock=1 semaphores=1
Code: Select all
options i915 modeset=1 powersave=1 semaphores=1
This puzzles me as it's supposed to be the same thing?
# modinfo i915 | grep powersave
parm: powersave:Enable powersavings, fbc, downclocking, etc. (default: true) (int)
Intel HD 4000 on a Core i5-3210M , and Radeon HD 7670M (which I disable on boot via rc.local):# apt policy linux-image-amd64
linux-image-amd64:
Installed: 3.2+45
Candidate: 3.2+45
Version table:
*** 3.2+45 0
500 http://mirror.rts-informatique.fr/linux ... /incoming/ testing/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/vgaswitcheroo/switch
0:IGD:+:Pwr:0000:00:02.0
1:DIS: :Off:0000:01:00.0
lspci -nn | grep -i "HM\|VGA"
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Intel Corporation 3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller [8086:0166] (rev 09)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge [0601]: Intel Corporation HM77 Express Chipset LPC Controller [8086:1e57] (rev 04)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI Thames XT/GL [Radeon HD 7600M Series] [1002:6840] (rev ff)
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Fresh copy of Mint isn't installed from packages. It is already decompressed and pre-configured. Just copied from DVD. That's why you can't select which packages you want to install.notty wrote:My only complaint is that UP5 is taking 3 times longer to update than it would to install and configure a fresh copy of Mint. This isn't counting the download time.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2
Installing from downloaded packages takes much longer, as you have to decompress new files, remove old ones, replace and configure them - it means *lots* of random I/O on single drive.
Watch IOWait during update process. If it is high - your HDD is just not fast enough.
And apt-get is indeed much slower than opensuse zypper - it took about about 20 minutes to update my system even on SSD.
I presume all distributions using apt share this "problem".
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Well... I've tried some other themes not related to Mint and haven't found any changes in the font quality. Should there be any? Please reveal your secretzerozero wrote:and someone whispered me a secret do you still see the same lost in font rendering if you change to a completely different theme than the mint themes?
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Hi there,
A couple of brief answers:
- Mint-X-Metal was replaced by Mint-X (part of the mint-themes packages)
- In MATE the sound applet comes from mate-media-pulse (along with mate-settings-daemon-pulse)
- The fonts in UP4 were using the Ubuntu patches.... pinning libcairo and fontconfig was tedious though and that wasn't done in UP5. So what you're seeing now in UP5 are the Debian fonts basically. Ideally Debian would have that fixed... of course we all know that's not going to happen any time soon, so we'll need to find a better way to tackle this issue.
A couple of brief answers:
- Mint-X-Metal was replaced by Mint-X (part of the mint-themes packages)
- In MATE the sound applet comes from mate-media-pulse (along with mate-settings-daemon-pulse)
- The fonts in UP4 were using the Ubuntu patches.... pinning libcairo and fontconfig was tedious though and that wasn't done in UP5. So what you're seeing now in UP5 are the Debian fonts basically. Ideally Debian would have that fixed... of course we all know that's not going to happen any time soon, so we'll need to find a better way to tackle this issue.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Oh. Do you mean the old libcairo and fontconfig (1.10.x/2.8.x) or the new ones from Quantal (1.12.x/2.10.x)?clem wrote:pinning libcairo and fontconfig was tedious though and that wasn't done in UP5
I know the old ones couldn't be used anymore because some programs now require libfontconfig1 >= 2.9.0... but what about the new ones?
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
The new ones can certainly be used, but the problem with pinning them is that it makes it hard for people to follow testing or that it can create problems when upgrading.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
If that's not a bug then it's alright. I had no idea about libcairo patches.
We're not using Ubuntu, so we shouldn't expect Ubuntu patches.
We're not using Ubuntu, so we shouldn't expect Ubuntu patches.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Clem,
Does it mean that if we do not follow Testing, installing the new libcairo will increase the quality of the font ?
Does it mean that if we do not follow Testing, installing the new libcairo will increase the quality of the font ?
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Well yes, libcairo and fontconfig are in a much better state in Ubuntu than in Debian.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Ok, I'm using cinnamon 1.6 and nemo, with UP5 working well.
How serious is the risk of breakage if I install these two libraries ?
How serious is the risk of breakage if I install these two libraries ?
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
What a disappointment.
I can't install libfontconfig1 from Quantal because some wise guy made only amd64 version of it dependent on libc6 (>= 2.14) - and even Wheezy now has only 2.13-35.
Will probably have to rebuild all that stuff from source and make the proper Debian packages...
I can't install libfontconfig1 from Quantal because some wise guy made only amd64 version of it dependent on libc6 (>= 2.14) - and even Wheezy now has only 2.13-35.
Will probably have to rebuild all that stuff from source and make the proper Debian packages...
-
- Level 1
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:15 am
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Jumping to the end of this thread and not surfing the other 12 pages, it would seem that everyone has a font issue. Somebody PLEASE!!! fix this! I thought by installing the True Type installer in Synaptic that it solved this issue. Apparently not.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
I wonder if this method works:
http://noz3001.wordpress.com/2011/07/01 ... an-wheezy/
It involves just extracting part of ubuntu deb file to /etc/fonts
http://noz3001.wordpress.com/2011/07/01 ... an-wheezy/
It involves just extracting part of ubuntu deb file to /etc/fonts
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
sobrus wrote:I wonder if this method works:
http://noz3001.wordpress.com/2011/07/01 ... an-wheezy/
It involves just extracting part of ubuntu deb file to /etc/fonts
Well, I tried this and it definitely improved font rendering.:
I backed up /etc/fonts
I downloaded fontconfig-config_2.10.1-0ubuntu3_all.deb
http://mirrors.us.kernel.org/ubuntu//po ... u3_all.deb
I extracted the /fonts folder from it and copied over /etc/fonts, and merged it with etc/fonts, overwriting all files that required overwriting/replacing.
I absolutely have no idea yet if this has broken anything. I note that we're using version 2.9.0-6. I didn't find a like ubuntu version of that so I went up to the next higher available that I could find. I guess another option might be to go back to ubuntu 2.8.0-3. ??? Maybe someone can locate a ubuntu 2.9.0-6 version?
Outside of the fact that it immediately improved my font rendering, I have no idea if this is actually a viable workaround. I will use it for a while and see how everything performs.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
Great news. I am at work now, but I will try it on VirtualBox once I get back home.
I don't know how many files actually need to be replaced. Maybe just a few?
I don't know how many files actually need to be replaced. Maybe just a few?
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
I've managed to somewhat improve font quality with a simple script which I've posted here. Need a few testers now to confirm it works not only for me.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
This is the first thing I did after installing UP5 and noticed an immediate improvement in font rendering (looks just like UP4). It's been a few days now and haven't seen anything bad happen as a result.sobrus wrote:I wonder if this method works:
http://noz3001.wordpress.com/2011/07/01 ... an-wheezy/
It involves just extracting part of ubuntu deb file to /etc/fonts
BTW, I used fontconfig-config_2.8.0-2.1ubuntu3_all.deb, not a later version.
Last edited by drjster on Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: UPDATE PACK 5 FEEDBACK THREAD
I have the regular LMDE, using the default repository. Today the updater tried to update 1.301 packages, install 150 new ones and remove 21, yet the UP5 hasn't been released yet. What's happening?