Le 21/01/2016 12:33, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:03:18AM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
>> Le 21/01/2016 05:57, Simon Wise a écrit :
>>> On 19/01/16 04:59, Steve Litt wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:31:43 +1100
>>>> Simon Wise<simonzwise@???> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But recently discovered that xfce4-terminal loses critical
>>>>> functionality without a session dbus running (it no longer connects
>>>>> to the cut buffer and clipboard ... which really destroys its
>>>>> functionality). I dropped it in favour of roxterminal which is very
>>>>> similar, based on the same engine I believe, but it does the cut
>>>>> buffer and clipboard etc directly, as it should.
>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to your recommendation, I just started using roxterm. What a
>>>> breath of fresh air! Tabbed. Multiple profiles mean all sorts of
>>>> different terminals for different needs. No unholy union to a "desktop
>>>> environment" other than the rox filemanager system.
>>> they are independent, I think ... though perhaps some D&D might be a
>>> bit cleaner between them??? they both just interact with X and allow
>>> extensive file-based configuration if you want to use it. Last time I
>>> tried both worked fine just in X alone, no other management.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I need several different types of terminal emulators for several
>>>> different types of jobs. From now on I'm using roxterm instead of
>>>> xfce4-terminal for all new construction.
>>> "profiles" can easily be invoked on CL if you want distinctive
>>> appearance to indicate different tasks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon
>> I installed roxterm and rox-filer. Both are just nice behaving.
>> roxterm doesn't seem to differ in apearence, configurability or
>> behaviour, from xfce4-terminal or gnome-terminal.
>>
>> rox-filer is nice looking, but it needs some configuration. Here
>> are the two waek points I noticed
>>
>> - there is absolutely no application defined by default for any
>> file type; you must define them all - this is a miss in the
>> packaging.
>> - there isn't a menu of possible applications for a given file
>> type. I like to be able to open an image with either a simple viewer
>> or with Gimp to edit it.
>>
> So I tried installing it, and found that it recommended zeroinstall-injector.
> Anyone know what this is? It seems to be a "platform-independent
> package manager". What does this mean in relation to rox-filer. And
> how does it relate to apt and aptitude.
>
> Might it alleviate some of the above complaints?
>
I always use apt-get install --no-install-recommends, or "default
upgrade" in Synaptic. And I don't look at the recommended packages :-)
This "recommends" feature has become a kind of bin for packages the
maintainers would like desperately to "require" for obscure reasons, but
they fail to find a valid one.
Didier
::
Re: [DNG] Does dunst require dbus?
