Thanks for tracking this down Joanie, I am using Metacity. I have filed a separate bug to track this.

12485 Webinstall sub dialogs not getting focus

We are reparenting the dialogs using a call to gtk.Window.set_transient_for(). Compiz does not seem to be respecting this. Will look into it.

JR

repository.py:
       def __set_modal_and_transient(top_window, parent_window = None):
               if parent_window:
                       top_window.set_transient_for(parent_window)
               top_window.set_modal(True)


Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
John, perchance do you use Metacity rather than Compiz? The reason I ask
is that I'm still seeing the unfocused dialog issue and was trying
different things to work out why you were failing to see it. If I switch
to Metacity the problem goes away.

While this is apparently a window manager issue, I think it would be
good if a solution could be found. I'd think this even if Metacity were
going to be the default window manager. But I heard somewhere that
OpenSolaris is switching over to Compiz by default.

Take care.
--joanie

On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 15:48 +0000, jmr wrote:
Padraig - thanks for the comments, in fixing this also noticed a few Webinstall UI issues that I have cleaned up (#12433):

http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jmr/pm_12000_webinstall_disabled_3Nov_333pm/
12000 Using Webinstall with a disabled publisher is cumbersome
12290 Proceed button disabled after being invoked in WebInstall
12433 Webinstall UI cleanup

JR


Padraig O'Briain wrote:
Some comments on changes to webinstall.py:

Can self.repo_gui be None at line 348?
Check added.
Is update_package_list called in main (GUI) thread or another thread? If not the GUI thread I am concerned about calling gtk.main_iteration().
Removed.
Padraig

On 11/03/09 08:22, John Rice wrote:
Thanks Joanie and Shawn - so we will leave this for now as is. Hopefully the performance issue will improve in the future. I will check on the focus issue before submitting.

Shawn the reason we are doing the disable -> enable -> disable sequence is that the user has disabled the Publisher for a reason, but we still want them to be able to install packages from the Publisher and leave the system in the same state before they started the p5i install.

This covers the use case of someone periodically installing a package from a Publisher they use infrequently and have no desire to see in PM listings or in search results.

JR


Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 15:04 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
John Rice wrote:
Good question Joanie, I think this is required to trigger the catalog updates. We are just operating on a Publisher object when we set it to disabled, for the update to take effect I believe you need to trigger the update, but Shawn would know best.
Yes, you need the update for the image to correctly reflect what packages are available.
Well.... Then, at least hypothetically, couldn't pkg do a mini-update
rather than a full update, given that:

* an update was just done moments prior, and thus the image presumably correctly reflects what packages are available

* the only thing which has changed since that update is the installation
  of a finite set of known packages

* the publisher in question is being re-disabled

* the user cannot interact with that publisher until it becomes re-enabled (right?), at which point a full update will occur

Anyhoo.... :-)

Regardless of the above, this new functionality is cool. As it is.
Thanks again John.

--joanie

_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss



_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to