kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:54:41 +0200
References: <4A3A9696.1040601@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <h1nqkc$gd9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200906221304.04258.cannewilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200906221325.17207.clive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3F8618.904@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3F89B1.7080207@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <h1o485$guq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3F9931.8000902@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Rex Dieter wrote:
> I considerred that.  Tried:  disabling nepomuk, logout/login, reset
> values, re-enable nepomuk
> 
> no fun.

Maybe it's a priority issue (i.e. Redland having higher priority than
Virtuoso for some reason)?

        Kevin Kofler

References:
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Rex Dieter
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Kevin Kofler
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Anne Wilson
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Clive Messer
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Rex Dieter
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Rex Dieter
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Kevin Kofler
- kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
  - From: Rex Dieter

Prev by Date: kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
Next by Date: kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
Previous by thread: kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
Next by thread: kde-4.2.90 and nepomuk, good, bad,ugly?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [KDE Users] [Fedora General Discussion] [Older Fedora Users Mail] [Fedora Advisory Board] [Fedora Security] [Fedora Maintainers] [Fedora Devel Java] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [ATA RAID] [Fedora Marketing] [Fedora Mentors] [Fedora Package Announce] [Fedora Package Review] [Fedora Music] [Fedora Packaging] [Centos] [Fedora SELinux] [Fedora Triage] [Coolkey] [Yum Users] [Yosemite Forum] [Fedora Art] [Fedora Docs] [Asterisk PBX]