[SPARCbook] Display problem with Netscape 4.73 under Solaris 2.6

[Ken Hansen]

I was aware of the "bad" in the desc., but right now my alternative is to
strip out the entire patch and go without it...

On a happier note, I've learned that if I use the mouse to point on a down
arrow to scroll, the display *appears* to function fine. Befire, I was using
the keyboard down arrow to scroll, and that is when I had problems.

So, to restate the problem:

    I have the "latest" Rev of 105284-34 installed.

    I have Netscape Communicator 4.73 installed.

    I have the Solaris 2.6 Recommended Patch Cluster (Circa June 1, 2000
est.) installed.

    When I call up a web page that is longer than one "screenful" at
800x600, if I scroll
    down with the PgDown key, the display is fine. If I use the
slider/scroll bar on the
    side of the screen, the display is fine. BUT, if I use the down-arrows
(the handiest
    way of all, IMHO) the screen is littered with repeats as I scroll down,
requiring me
    to reload the page each time I scroll.

Now that we have this new description, I wonder what is so unique about the
down-arrow
keys that they are causing this problem? Does the keyboard down-arrow
somehow cause
a different scroll mechanism to be used, compared with the PgDown key and
the scroll bar?

I still don't see how I can get an earlier copy of the 105284-3X patch
(-32, -31, etc)?

Thanks,

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rainer Canavan" <rainer at canavan.de>
To: <sparcbook at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [SPARCbook] Display problem with Netscape 4.73 under Solaris
2.6


> > Sorry, I was mistaken - that site will only give up the most recent
patch
> > rev.
> >
> > Anyone know how to get the -32 rev? I'd like Netscape to work, and the
> > page-up page-down key is not a 100% solution (every third or fourth
screen
> > needs to be redrawn)...
>
> I don't think -32 exists at all. If you look at the notes for -34, you'll
> see:
>
> (from 105284-32)
> Bad Patch. Incorrect fix for 4318757 crash in drag and drop
>
> So, even if it existed, you probably wouldn't want it. -31 is ok, and, as
it
> seems to work (haven't tried myself), it's probably the best we can get
> for now.