[kde-solaris] Cups on Solaris 8

[Torsten Kasch]

Hi Ian,

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 01:17:41PM -0500, Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Greetings
> 	Now that I have openldap and openssl support working happy from 
> sunfreeware.com with my current KDE install, im getting brave enough to go 
> after cups support.
> 
> 	Has anyone ever tried this before?  Is anyone useing cups on solaris with 
> KDE?

Yes, we're running CUPS (1.1.14) here as our printing system with KDE 2.2.2
and 3.1beta1 (100+ SunRays and a couple of workstations) without problems
so far...

> 	Cheers
> 	-ian reinhart geiser
> 
> p.s. I now have all of KDE 3.1 cvs head and Qt-copy head building on solaris 8 
> with gcc 2.95.3.  I only had to disable kppp on solaris just because it was 
> so funky to hack into working...  

That leads me to the question: What did you do to get this going?

I've been struggling with qt-copy/kde-cvs during the last weeks and have
two major problems right now:

* on my Solaris 8/x86 laptop: Konqueror instantly crashes when rendering
  http://www.trolltech.com/ and on other URLs. I couldn't reproduce this
  on Solaris 8/SPARC and, since I switched from gcc 2.95.2 (without binutils)
  to gcc 3.2 and GNU binutils 2.12, I won't blame KDE/Qt right now (well,
  not until I've investigated this further ;-) Currently, the cores and
  backtraces I have suggest to me to that the cause might be in Qt's
  font handling routines, but I'm not sure right now...

* on Solaris 8/SPARC (using gcc 3.2, Sun's "as" and "ld"): KDE's startup
  seems to "hang" (probably in kded or ksmserver, I'm going to dig into
  this when I'm back in the office on monday). After killing the "kdeinit"
  which must have been "kded", I got a (somewhat) usable session -- without
  "kdesktop"...

I'm a bit surprised to encounter such problems, since 3.1beta1/qt-3.0.5
are _rock_solid_ for me on _both_ platforms (both compiled with
gcc-2.95.2, no binutils) and I haven't found any hints in the CVS logs
what changes might cause this behaviour...

Do you think it would be worth trying to compile the whole thing with
gcc 2.95.x? (I am well aware of the binary incompatibilities between the
different g++ releases -- that was the reason why I was reluctant to
use gcc 3 at all....)

cheers,
	Torsten

-- 
   Torsten Kasch                               tk@Genetik.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
        Biologie VI/Zentrum f. Genomforschung
        Universität Bielefeld                  Phone: +49 521 106-4828
        D-33594 Bielefeld                      Fax:   +49 521 106-5626