gentoo的中文LIVECD──ibox

d00m3d

教主, I notice a compatibility issue between Gentoo-2004.2 and 2004.3.  More precisely, a 2004.2 system to use with 2004.3 package CD.

Sometimes, for big packages such as kde, I may not have patience to compile them from src.  But, as we know, 2004.2 is gcc-3.3 based while 2004.3 is gcc-3.4 based.  If I force the 2004.2 system to use the 2004.3 package CD, although the packages are installed, it seems not all of them are stable.

I know iBOX-0.1 is based on 2004.2, just for curiousity, may I know whether you will base iBOX-0.2 on 2004.3(r1) or continue with 2004.2?

torres

Post by d00m3d
But, as we know, 2004.2 is gcc-3.3 based while 2004.3 is gcc-3.4 based.  If I force the 2004.2 system to use the 2004.3 package CD, although the packages are installed, it seems not all of them are stable.

2004.3 is still compiled with gcc-3.3.

home_king

Post by d00m3d
教主, I notice a compatibility issue between Gentoo-2004.2 and 2004.3.  More precisely, a 2004.2 system to use with 2004.3 package CD.

Sometimes, for big packages such as kde, I may not have patience to compile them from src.  But, as we know, 2004.2 is gcc-3.3 based while 2004.3 is gcc-3.4 based.  If I force the 2004.2 system to use the 2004.3 package CD, although the packages are installed, it seems not all of them are stable.

I know iBOX-0.1 is based on 2004.2, just for curiousity, may I know whether you will base iBOX-0.2 on 2004.3(r1) or continue with 2004.2?

There exists mainly 4 "rofile"s to select, which are 2004.0, 2004.2, 2004.3, 2005.0 to go with portage tree. They are located in a new position now -- /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux, while the old location is /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2004.x. And, new releases of package CD named by 2004.x, also specify its 2004.x profile by default.

On the other hand, gcc version will be determined by profile itselft. As known, gcc-3.4 is an unstable version, and 2004.0, 2004.2, 2004.3, even 2005.0 do not use it! However, if you perfer 2004.0, 2004.2 to use gcc34, you can change the profile to gcc34-x86-2004.2.

According to my experience, 2004.3 is stable, using gcc-3.3 by default. IBOX-0.2 will base on 2004.3.

home_king

谈谈字体，大家觉得firefly的中英文字体可以接受吗？也就是AR PL NEW SUNG。
个人意见就是，fiefly的英文字体比较丑，中文字体可以，含字数不多，标点符号的位置偏中，而且它没有gbk编码或者gb2312编码，所以gtk1程序不能使用fiefly，但是，fiefly胜在开源，按文鼎GPL协议发布，这点比simsun要好。

Fleta

Post by home_king
而且它没有gbk编码或者gb2312编码，所以gtk1程序不能使用fiefly，

那就用utf8吧。

home_king

兄弟可以说说utf8编码的背景吗？最好能将它和gbk对比一下。

home_king

给大家贴一个使用fiefly字体的浏览器效果图：

home_king

再贴一张fiefly的效果图，看看，和simsun有得比较哦，呵呵。

home_king

由于中文portage里的fonts.conf和local.conf这两个fontconfig的配置文件原本都是针对simsun和tahoma字体组合的，所以不适合firefly字体用，这样会出现英文字体丑陋难看的现象。经过调整这两个配置文件，删除掉simsun和tahoma的配置部分，添加AR PL NEW SUNG到相应的配置段，终于使得Firefly和相对较为漂亮的Bitstream Vera Sans字体配合一起使用，显示效果堪与simsun+tahoma媲美。

由于IBOX-0.2使用的是GNOME和firefox浏览器，这两者都依赖fontconfig的配置，所以调整后，无论是应用程序、桌面、Gnome终端还是firefox浏览器文本显示，效果都很一致。

IBOX-0.2会使用这两种字体的组合，免受simsun版权纷扰，但唯一的缺陷是，gtk1程序不能使用firefly字体，所以只能尽量减少gtk1程序的数量，比如将xmms换成beep-media-player，将mplayer换成英文版(我不会用xine;-)。大家觉得这样好吗？

Firefox + Bitstream Vera Sans的效果图：

nelson_wood

其实这是我的一个建议，上次忘了说了，就是用bmp代替xmms...毕竟bmp更好一些的，呵呵，老大辛苦一下吧。