Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:13 -0300, Evandro Giovanini wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Olav Vitters wrote: I thought the work that went into GTK+ 3.4 (GMenu) should allow Unity to use that functionality instead of any patches. Not 100% sure on this. It does require that GTK+ applications make use of GMenu (and only a few do). Usually when GMenu support is added you see some new entries under the application icon (next to Activities). Ugh, why a new backwards-incompatible API instead of supporting this feature required for cross-desktop interoperability in the existing one? :-( In addition, the new API is designed to only export a single menu with a subset of the full one, which may work for Unity, but NOT for Mac-style menus such as the global menu bar widget available for KDE Plasma. Why reject a complete solution in favor of a crippled one? :-( The menu integrates just fine under GNOME, Mac OS X and XFCE. I don't see why it wouldn't work on KDE as well. Please look at http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/3.3/GtkApplication.html to answer your questions. AIUI, the problem is that the GTK+ API is designed only to handle the GNOME design where any app has a _single_ 'universal' menu. You can't put File, Edit, View, Tools, Help... menus into the Shell panel with it; you can only get a single menu (the one with the app's name and icon, next to Activities). This is the design GNOME wants. But Kevin's saying you can't use it to implement something like OS X-style global menus, where you have a full traditional menu bar that lives in the panel rather than the app window. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Jaroslav Reznik wrote: The most interesting part - the QML based desktop is over, so waiting for Plasma 2 :) Well, that part was to be expected after the announcement that QML 2 would require OpenGL. The whole goal of Unity 2D was to NOT require OpenGL. So Nokia killed this. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Olav Vitters wrote: I thought the work that went into GTK+ 3.4 (GMenu) should allow Unity to use that functionality instead of any patches. Not 100% sure on this. It does require that GTK+ applications make use of GMenu (and only a few do). Usually when GMenu support is added you see some new entries under the application icon (next to Activities). Ugh, why a new backwards-incompatible API instead of supporting this feature required for cross-desktop interoperability in the existing one? :-( In addition, the new API is designed to only export a single menu with a subset of the full one, which may work for Unity, but NOT for Mac-style menus such as the global menu bar widget available for KDE Plasma. Why reject a complete solution in favor of a crippled one? :-( Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Nelson Marques wrote: + 043_ubuntu_menu_proxy.patch ( to export menus through DBus, this one is still used, and if I understood correctly, this is currently the only remnant of non-upstreamed patches and I believe it was declined by GTK+ upstream, to be confirmed in the next days ) I really blame the GTK+ developers for rejecting this one! It is also needed for the global menu bar Plasma widget. Qt accepted an equivalent patch upstream. Why won't GTK+ care about the needs of non-GNOME desktops? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
2012/7/24 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at: Nelson Marques wrote: + 043_ubuntu_menu_proxy.patch ( to export menus through DBus, this one is still used, and if I understood correctly, this is currently the only remnant of non-upstreamed patches and I believe it was declined by GTK+ upstream, to be confirmed in the next days ) I really blame the GTK+ developers for rejecting this one! It is also needed for the global menu bar Plasma widget. Qt accepted an equivalent patch upstream. Why won't GTK+ care about the needs of non-GNOME desktops? Maybe because GTK+ had something else in mind (gmenus ?) and this was a feature which introduced similiar functionality? Either way, Matthias most likely knows the reasons better. There's also those in the wilderness which supply a patch here and there and then leave the feature for others to maintain. I'm sure many have heard stories like this in the past... This is just speculation from my side. When I runned across this on openSUSE I talked to Ken VanDine and Didier from Canonical and they said it was refused by upstream. I didn't looked much into it because I already knew that Vincent wouldn't let this patch be merged with SUSE GTK+ stack unless upstream fixed it. Maybe we should look into the future and not in the past :) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Olav Vitters wrote: I thought the work that went into GTK+ 3.4 (GMenu) should allow Unity to use that functionality instead of any patches. Not 100% sure on this. It does require that GTK+ applications make use of GMenu (and only a few do). Usually when GMenu support is added you see some new entries under the application icon (next to Activities). Ugh, why a new backwards-incompatible API instead of supporting this feature required for cross-desktop interoperability in the existing one? :-( In addition, the new API is designed to only export a single menu with a subset of the full one, which may work for Unity, but NOT for Mac-style menus such as the global menu bar widget available for KDE Plasma. Why reject a complete solution in favor of a crippled one? :-( The menu integrates just fine under GNOME, Mac OS X and XFCE. I don't see why it wouldn't work on KDE as well. Please look at http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/3.3/GtkApplication.html to answer your questions. Cheers, -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:05:25PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: It would be better to think of this as a starting point for porting and to work out the packaging issue instead of an enduser consumable. Porting Unity outside of Ubuntu is not going to be easy for anyone. There's a reason why its not in Debian yet at all. Jeff, The GNOME:Ayatana repo was actually started by me somewhere in 2010; My original goal was to test the port and improve my packaging. Since the early days that Vincent Untz had made clear that it could never be merged with mainline openSUSE because of unacceptable patches: 1) The GTK stack required a lot of patching, which had been mainly refused by upstream; Most likely GTK+ upstream knows better this issue than me. I haven't contacted them, not even Federico. This patches includes the 'Menu Proxy' patches and others. To build Unity (openSUSE back then) at least 4 patches on GTK+ were required; 2) XInput2 had to be supported also which involved a few more crazy hacks on Xorg stack (at least if I remember correctly); Unity these days relies (afaik) on the released upstream version of XI 2.2 and is thus compatible with the server 1.12 we ship in F17. Cheers, Peter 3) Back in the day, ATI binaries (I use Intel nowadays, but back then was running ATI with fglrx) were fixed in Ubuntu the rest of the people were left to dry in the desert; So I never could really test it properly. 4) Back then GDM was also hacked, but this was related to backport sessions features from GDM2 to GDM2; 5) GNOME session required to be hacked because Canonical had changed a lot, so in order for the indicators to shutdown the system and reboot the system, you needed to patch gnome-session. A lot of patching not accepted upstream was required back then. I have then left the repository behind and ignored it for quite long as the number packages was really increasing a lot (around 50 packages, many of them hacked). I've ditched it as it was requesting too much from me, and I couldn't handle it alone. I've added a few maintainers that requested it and removed myself from the repo maintainership; The main reason was because the repo will become totally un-usable as it is now for any distro... I've stopped working on it mainly because of the kind of things people are doing now, crazy hacks (in my opinion it will lead to chaotic maintaining issues). The contents of this particular repo are entirely unacceptable for submission into mainline Fedora. And that's fine..its an experimental repository. If the people working inside the repo are serious about moving forward further with the porting work and are interesting in getting the packaging fixed so its compliant I'm willing to help them with package reviews and recommendations on how to come into compliance with our policies. Are you ready to accept patches on GTK+ and potentially on Xorg that were declined from upstream? This should be your initial thoughts! At a minimum they'll have to figure out how to deal with vendor patchsets against the gnome packages. Either dropping the patches entirely and relying on stock gnome as we ship it.. or forking the gnome components and renaming them for Unity to require in such a way that a system can have both the unity stack and the gnome stack installed in parallel without conflict. Forking anything will lead this to nearly unmaintainable unless you have someone working fulltime on it ;) All the previous are my personal comments; Though I don't really care about this issue, I don't believe much has changed on how Canonical does it's stuff. I wish all the best to the maintainers, because I have really a nice idea on the pain such project is going to give :) NM -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:55:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/19/2012 07:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... I don't know what Ubuntu has been doing so far, but to be fair, probably all major Linux distros and, on a more general scope probably all OSes ship their own (more or less heavily modified) versions of GCC for many years - Neither Fedora nor RH are exceptions from this. Right, but the point is they're not using the Fedora one even though the packages are for Fedora. At a guess, bits of the Unity stack aren't ported to GCC 4.7 yet. Though it's usually not _too_ difficult to patch things to build okay with 4.7. I directly asked to Didier Roche on irc ( unity dev ), he told me that unity compile on gcc 4.7, but there is a specific issue with gcc 4.7 and sigc++ ABI that requires him to force gcc 4.6 for now on Ubuntu ( until the current package is updated to a version that do not break the ABI, and the base libraries are rebuilt with this new version ) So there is no need for any specific code or patch, the packagers of the rpm just followed blindly the packaging of Ubuntu without asking. He also told me that now, there is no need for gtk patch and that it should work without it. So I would suggest to get in touch with him, he is quite a helpful and open guy, and would be happy to see unity on more than Ubuntu. ( for example, he is waiting on someone to sponsor him for uploading packages to debian, and that's the reason why there is no package yet ). Details to contact him are on his launchpad page. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
- Original Message - On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 21:58 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: 2012/7/19 Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: I've asked Ken to provide me some additional info on this; I will mail tomorrow or during the weekend the links to this list. Let's get an accurate picture of what is actually left for vendor patches before we decide the current situation is a non-starter. And then try to categorize them as critical or not. End of the day, a compromise will most likely have to be made with some non-critical patches not being included, with Fedora's version of Unity being less capable than Ubuntu's Unity desktop until the patches can be refactored in a way that they are upstreamable. I'm willing to help where I can with any changes that lead to submittable packages. I'm not involved in this project anyway; If this is going forward, I don't mind co-maintaining a few packages, I would prefer the indicator stack as it's the components I know better. Either way my interventions were not meant to promote this initiative or to bash it. I've only tried to share a few issues I found in the past, though I'm willing to help co-maintaining a 'few' packages, not the whole stack, I don't have time for it. Note for the record - I'm perfectly willing to give up my maintainership of the few packages I own from my old abortive effort to package Unity. I have bamf, libindicator and probably one or two others I forgot about. If anyone wants these, just ping me. Same here, even the QML port is dead I still own a few of -qt wrappers for bamf etc. I gave up the packaging effort when Unity-2d started to use a common library for both implementations. The most interesting part - the QML based desktop is over, so waiting for Plasma 2 :) R. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Jaroslav Řezník jrez...@redhat.com Engineering Program Manager Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
- Original Message - On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/19/2012 07:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... I don't know what Ubuntu has been doing so far, but to be fair, probably all major Linux distros and, on a more general scope probably all OSes ship their own (more or less heavily modified) versions of GCC for many years - Neither Fedora nor RH are exceptions from this. Right, but the point is they're not using the Fedora one even though the packages are for Fedora. At a guess, bits of the Unity stack aren't ported to GCC 4.7 yet. Though it's usually not _too_ difficult to patch things to build okay with 4.7. Indeed, we in Fedora are masters in porting to the new version of GCC, it should not be difficult to port to 4.7 and upstream it (4.6 vs 4.7 were usually small changes in the whole KDE stack). R. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:33 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: an you point me to the relevant discussion for any critical functionality patches which were actually submitted to the upstream projects in question and were rejected. My existing understanding is that unity can operate without any vendor patches being applied outside of compiz, and the patches to compiz have been upstreamed. Everything else is enhanced functionality that is non-critical. Particularly the xorg patches, as I am not aware of any critical xorg patches that exist. Obviously the utouch stuff, regardless of its upstream nature, is not critical functionality. That being said, I'm pretty confident the maintainers of the impacted packages are not going to take on substantial non-upstream patch sets to Xorg and Gnome. It really goes against the upstream what is reasonable ethos of this distribution. I'll remind you again that Unity isn't packaged in Debian for a reason. I would suggest this deep vendor patching of shared components is part of that reason. I haven't looked at current unity, but the gmenu and gapplication work that has been included in glib/gtk+ in the last cycle should let them drop most of their menu-related patches. This work was done in cooperation with Canonical, and we've invested considerable effort into narrowing the gap - or preventing it from becoming a permantent rift. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 00:19 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:20:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: + 043_ubuntu_menu_proxy.patch ( to export menus through DBus, this one is still used, and if I understood correctly, this is currently the only remnant of non-upstreamed patches and I believe it was declined by GTK+ upstream, to be confirmed in the next days ) I thought the work that went into GTK+ 3.4 (GMenu) should allow Unity to use that functionality instead of any patches. Not 100% sure on this. It does require that GTK+ applications make use of GMenu (and only a few do). Usually when GMenu support is added you see some new entries under the application icon (next to Activities). In 3.6, the set of gmenu-using applications will grow considerably, see https://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/PortToGMenu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Hello all, First I had a problem posting to the list, but that was my fault sorry, forgot to confirm the subscription :) I am one of the two maintainers of GNOME:Ayatana. Xiao-Lonng Chen did most of Fedora spec files writing, but recently I switched to Fedora too. Chen is now on vacation for a few days. Unity could work basically without too much patches but with limited functionality. utouch- packages don't need any vendor patches nux doesn't need any vendor patches indicator's don't need vendor specific patches With compiz 0.9.8, Ubuntu has restructured the Compiz packages a bit: Everything is now part of the compiz package: - libcompizconfig - python-compizconfig - compiz-plugins (obsoleted compiz-plugins-main) - compiz-plugins-extra (obsoleted compiz-plugins-extra) - compizconfig-backend-gconf so we would need here only one packacke (maybe compiz-unity/ubuntu/ayatan) we use gcc46 now because unity and nux still need to be build with it. gcc47 fails for that At the moment for unity to build/run we need patched: libXfixes (requires a patch coming from debian) xorg-x11-proto (see above patch) xorg-x11-server (else autohide feature from unity launcher does not work) gtk2,3 for the menu export gnome-disk-utility - must build libdu which was removed from upstream in 3.2 The other packages enhance functinoality like gnome-control-center (e.g in appearance be able to change theme) pulseaudio needs ubuntu patches, but pulse 2.0 will obsolete them) gnome-session for a gnome-session file (in theory we could get that in the unity package) bluetooth and NetworkManager to show these indicators in unity What I would propose is to get 1st all indicator and the requires of them into Fedora since they only require few patches indicator-appmenu needs pachted gtk2,3 indicator-time needs patched gnome-control-center but we could start finding a way to get the gtk2,3 with patches and after that dbusmenu etc. Cheers @Xiao-Long see http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-July/170051.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Matthias, Thanks for the info, I've left this behind a long time ago and I'm not really considering jumping in again; I only found it amusing because the original work on that repository was made by me in 2010 and for some time. My comments were based on the experience I had. Good too know that things have changed; it will be interesting to see Unity as an option in any distro. NM 2012/7/20 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com: On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:33 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: an you point me to the relevant discussion for any critical functionality patches which were actually submitted to the upstream projects in question and were rejected. My existing understanding is that unity can operate without any vendor patches being applied outside of compiz, and the patches to compiz have been upstreamed. Everything else is enhanced functionality that is non-critical. Particularly the xorg patches, as I am not aware of any critical xorg patches that exist. Obviously the utouch stuff, regardless of its upstream nature, is not critical functionality. That being said, I'm pretty confident the maintainers of the impacted packages are not going to take on substantial non-upstream patch sets to Xorg and Gnome. It really goes against the upstream what is reasonable ethos of this distribution. I'll remind you again that Unity isn't packaged in Debian for a reason. I would suggest this deep vendor patching of shared components is part of that reason. I haven't looked at current unity, but the gmenu and gapplication work that has been included in glib/gtk+ in the last cycle should let them drop most of their menu-related patches. This work was done in cooperation with Canonical, and we've invested considerable effort into narrowing the gap - or preventing it from becoming a permantent rift. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Nelson Marques // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of bread in the middle... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:26 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Note for the record - I'm perfectly willing to give up my maintainership of the few packages I own from my old abortive effort to package Unity. I have bamf, libindicator and probably one or two others I forgot about. If anyone wants these, just ping me. libindicator needs to be revved regardless. They pulled out dbusmenu as a separate small library now and libindictor depends on it. If I put dbusmenu package together would you care to do the review, and then we can rev libindicator? sure, assign the review to me and ping me if I don't follow up. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Hello, This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
2012/7/19 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com Hello, This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel This part worries me But, and this needs to be noted, updating with this repo added *will* replace some core GNOME components with Unity-compatible versions. -- *Antonio Trande Fedora Ambassador* *Fedora italian translation group* *Blogger **mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org sagit...@fedoraproject.org *Homepage*: http://www.fedora-os.org *Sip Address* : sip:sagitter AT ekiga.net *Jabber http://jabber.org/* :sagitter AT jabber.org *GPG Key: 19E6DF27* -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Dangerous road you follow. Best of luck. On Jul 19, 2012 11:23 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On 07/19/2012 11:23 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? From the looks of it I'm pretty sure they will need to patch unity not to break core Gnome components before that can be done but I guess the Gnome developers here within the distribution can answer that one. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:49:15 +0200 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/19 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora (clip) This part worries me But, and this needs to be noted, updating with this repo added *will* replace some core GNOME components with Unity-compatible versions. Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:49:15 +0200 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/19 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora (clip) This part worries me But, and this needs to be noted, updating with this repo added *will* replace some core GNOME components with Unity-compatible versions. Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... It would be better to think of this as a starting point for porting and to work out the packaging issue instead of an enduser consumable. Porting Unity outside of Ubuntu is not going to be easy for anyone. There's a reason why its not in Debian yet at all. The contents of this particular repo are entirely unacceptable for submission into mainline Fedora. And that's fine..its an experimental repository. If the people working inside the repo are serious about moving forward further with the porting work and are interesting in getting the packaging fixed so its compliant I'm willing to help them with package reviews and recommendations on how to come into compliance with our policies. At a minimum they'll have to figure out how to deal with vendor patchsets against the gnome packages. Either dropping the patches entirely and relying on stock gnome as we ship it.. or forking the gnome components and renaming them for Unity to require in such a way that a system can have both the unity stack and the gnome stack installed in parallel without conflict. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On 07/19/2012 07:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... I don't know what Ubuntu has been doing so far, but to be fair, probably all major Linux distros and, on a more general scope probably all OSes ship their own (more or less heavily modified) versions of GCC for many years - Neither Fedora nor RH are exceptions from this. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
2012/7/19 Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:49:15 +0200 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/19 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora (clip) This part worries me But, and this needs to be noted, updating with this repo added *will* replace some core GNOME components with Unity-compatible versions. Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... It would be better to think of this as a starting point for porting and to work out the packaging issue instead of an enduser consumable. Porting Unity outside of Ubuntu is not going to be easy for anyone. There's a reason why its not in Debian yet at all. So should start from herehttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Guidelines because in this case Ubuntu Unity has NOT been ported to Fedora 17 but has been installed forcedly. ;) *Antonio Trande Fedora Ambassador* *Fedora italian translation group* *Blogger **mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org sagit...@fedoraproject.org *Homepage*: http://www.fedora-os.org *Sip Address* : sip:sagitter AT ekiga.net *Jabber http://jabber.org/* :sagitter AT jabber.org *GPG Key: 19E6DF27* -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:29:13 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 07/19/2012 07:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... I don't know what Ubuntu has been doing so far, but to be fair, probably all major Linux distros and, on a more general scope probably all OSes ship their own (more or less heavily modified) versions of GCC for many years - Neither Fedora nor RH are exceptions from this. Sure, but my point was that repos for single packages rarely do that. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
It would be better to think of this as a starting point for porting and to work out the packaging issue instead of an enduser consumable. Porting Unity outside of Ubuntu is not going to be easy for anyone. There's a reason why its not in Debian yet at all. Jeff, The GNOME:Ayatana repo was actually started by me somewhere in 2010; My original goal was to test the port and improve my packaging. Since the early days that Vincent Untz had made clear that it could never be merged with mainline openSUSE because of unacceptable patches: 1) The GTK stack required a lot of patching, which had been mainly refused by upstream; Most likely GTK+ upstream knows better this issue than me. I haven't contacted them, not even Federico. This patches includes the 'Menu Proxy' patches and others. To build Unity (openSUSE back then) at least 4 patches on GTK+ were required; 2) XInput2 had to be supported also which involved a few more crazy hacks on Xorg stack (at least if I remember correctly); 3) Back in the day, ATI binaries (I use Intel nowadays, but back then was running ATI with fglrx) were fixed in Ubuntu the rest of the people were left to dry in the desert; So I never could really test it properly. 4) Back then GDM was also hacked, but this was related to backport sessions features from GDM2 to GDM2; 5) GNOME session required to be hacked because Canonical had changed a lot, so in order for the indicators to shutdown the system and reboot the system, you needed to patch gnome-session. A lot of patching not accepted upstream was required back then. I have then left the repository behind and ignored it for quite long as the number packages was really increasing a lot (around 50 packages, many of them hacked). I've ditched it as it was requesting too much from me, and I couldn't handle it alone. I've added a few maintainers that requested it and removed myself from the repo maintainership; The main reason was because the repo will become totally un-usable as it is now for any distro... I've stopped working on it mainly because of the kind of things people are doing now, crazy hacks (in my opinion it will lead to chaotic maintaining issues). The contents of this particular repo are entirely unacceptable for submission into mainline Fedora. And that's fine..its an experimental repository. If the people working inside the repo are serious about moving forward further with the porting work and are interesting in getting the packaging fixed so its compliant I'm willing to help them with package reviews and recommendations on how to come into compliance with our policies. Are you ready to accept patches on GTK+ and potentially on Xorg that were declined from upstream? This should be your initial thoughts! At a minimum they'll have to figure out how to deal with vendor patchsets against the gnome packages. Either dropping the patches entirely and relying on stock gnome as we ship it.. or forking the gnome components and renaming them for Unity to require in such a way that a system can have both the unity stack and the gnome stack installed in parallel without conflict. Forking anything will lead this to nearly unmaintainable unless you have someone working fulltime on it ;) All the previous are my personal comments; Though I don't really care about this issue, I don't believe much has changed on how Canonical does it's stuff. I wish all the best to the maintainers, because I have really a nice idea on the pain such project is going to give :) NM -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: Are you ready to accept patches on GTK+ and potentially on Xorg that were declined from upstream? This should be your initial thoughts! Can you point me to the relevant discussion for any critical functionality patches which were actually submitted to the upstream projects in question and were rejected. My existing understanding is that unity can operate without any vendor patches being applied outside of compiz, and the patches to compiz have been upstreamed. Everything else is enhanced functionality that is non-critical. Particularly the xorg patches, as I am not aware of any critical xorg patches that exist. Obviously the utouch stuff, regardless of its upstream nature, is not critical functionality. That being said, I'm pretty confident the maintainers of the impacted packages are not going to take on substantial non-upstream patch sets to Xorg and Gnome. It really goes against the upstream what is reasonable ethos of this distribution. I'll remind you again that Unity isn't packaged in Debian for a reason. I would suggest this deep vendor patching of shared components is part of that reason. Forking anything will lead this to nearly unmaintainable unless you have someone working fulltime on it ;) Then this repository effort will continue to be a non-starter for inclusion. That is unfortunate. And due to the extensive nature of the package replacement, I will be actively dissuading anyone from using these packages. I will also be making an effort to inform community support providers in the irc and forum support channels to look up for these packages being on a user's system and to point those users to your preferred support channel for help with their system when problems arise wit operation associated with anything you replace including pulse audio and gnome. For the record, what is your preferred support channel for end-users to use if they encounter problems after installing these packages? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
2012/7/19 Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: Are you ready to accept patches on GTK+ and potentially on Xorg that were declined from upstream? This should be your initial thoughts! Can you point me to the relevant discussion for any critical functionality patches which were actually submitted to the upstream projects in question and were rejected. I've asked Ken to provide me some additional info on this; I will mail tomorrow or during the weekend the links to this list. From what I know back then, this patches were needed: - gnome-session + 95_dbus_request_shutdown.patch ( not sure if this is still required, this enabled the shutdown functions to work properly from the session indicator ). - GTK+-2.0 + 012_ubuntu-set-grab-add.patch ( I don't believe this one is used anymore, but this enabled to export widgets through DBus ) + 043_ubuntu_menu_proxy.patch ( to export menus through DBus, this one is still used, and if I understood correctly, this is currently the only remnant of non-upstreamed patches and I believe it was declined by GTK+ upstream, to be confirmed in the next days ) + There were 2 more fixes to properly generate the .gir packages, not much big deal there. The working packages are still here: https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=gtk2project=GNOME%3AAyatana%3A11.4 Those were the sensitive issues back then. I never included the XInput stuff on Xorg and left this stuff behind because it was taking I didn't had back then. That being said, I'm pretty confident the maintainers of the impacted packages are not going to take on substantial non-upstream patch sets to Xorg and Gnome. It really goes against the upstream what is reasonable ethos of this distribution. I'll remind you again that Unity isn't packaged in Debian for a reason. I would suggest this deep vendor patching of shared components is part of that reason. I agree. Like I said, I got warned from Vincent that some patches weren't acceptable to merge with GNOME unless they were upstreamed. I'm not surprised that others feel the same way. Forking anything will lead this to nearly unmaintainable unless you have someone working fulltime on it ;) Then this repository effort will continue to be a non-starter for inclusion. That is unfortunate. +1; it would be interesting to any distro to also include Unity, though I'm not sure that personally I would use it. And due to the extensive nature of the package replacement, I will be actively dissuading anyone from using these packages. I will also be making an effort to inform community support providers in the irc and forum support channels to look up for these packages being on a user's system and to point those users to your preferred support channel for help with their system when problems arise wit operation associated with anything you replace including pulse audio and gnome. For the record, what is your preferred support channel for end-users to use if they encounter problems after installing these packages? If it was me, I would still try to do what Canonical didn't, some refactoring to code and see if could get it upstreamed to easen up for everyone. I guess this involves a lot of work across several components, but then all the community could benefit from them. If people encounter bugs on this packages, go to the url[1], sounds like the most logical option to me. [1] - https://bugzilla.novell.com/enter_bug.cgi?classification=7340product=openSUSE.orgcomponent=3rd%20party%20softwareassigned_to=vu...@suse.comshort_desc=GNOME:Ayatana:%20Bug -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: I've asked Ken to provide me some additional info on this; I will mail tomorrow or during the weekend the links to this list. Let's get an accurate picture of what is actually left for vendor patches before we decide the current situation is a non-starter. And then try to categorize them as critical or not. End of the day, a compromise will most likely have to be made with some non-critical patches not being included, with Fedora's version of Unity being less capable than Ubuntu's Unity desktop until the patches can be refactored in a way that they are upstreamable. I'm willing to help where I can with any changes that lead to submittable packages. We'll need a new maintainer for compiz inside Fedora as a necessary pre-condition for getting any version of Unity in, But lets be honest, compiz is effectively dead as an independent wm. It's primary use case now is to be the infrastructure for the Unity Desktop. This is a role I will not being volunteering for. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
2012/7/19 Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: I've asked Ken to provide me some additional info on this; I will mail tomorrow or during the weekend the links to this list. Let's get an accurate picture of what is actually left for vendor patches before we decide the current situation is a non-starter. And then try to categorize them as critical or not. End of the day, a compromise will most likely have to be made with some non-critical patches not being included, with Fedora's version of Unity being less capable than Ubuntu's Unity desktop until the patches can be refactored in a way that they are upstreamable. I'm willing to help where I can with any changes that lead to submittable packages. I'm not involved in this project anyway; If this is going forward, I don't mind co-maintaining a few packages, I would prefer the indicator stack as it's the components I know better. Either way my interventions were not meant to promote this initiative or to bash it. I've only tried to share a few issues I found in the past, though I'm willing to help co-maintaining a 'few' packages, not the whole stack, I don't have time for it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not involved in this project anyway; If you can put me into direct contact with someone who is actively involved I'd be more than happy to discuss a potential roadmap towards a submittable set of packages, either in public or in private communication and see if we can hammer out an achievable goal. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:20:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: + 043_ubuntu_menu_proxy.patch ( to export menus through DBus, this one is still used, and if I understood correctly, this is currently the only remnant of non-upstreamed patches and I believe it was declined by GTK+ upstream, to be confirmed in the next days ) I thought the work that went into GTK+ 3.4 (GMenu) should allow Unity to use that functionality instead of any patches. Not 100% sure on this. It does require that GTK+ applications make use of GMenu (and only a few do). Usually when GMenu support is added you see some new entries under the application icon (next to Activities). -- Regards, Olav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 21:58 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: 2012/7/19 Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote: I've asked Ken to provide me some additional info on this; I will mail tomorrow or during the weekend the links to this list. Let's get an accurate picture of what is actually left for vendor patches before we decide the current situation is a non-starter. And then try to categorize them as critical or not. End of the day, a compromise will most likely have to be made with some non-critical patches not being included, with Fedora's version of Unity being less capable than Ubuntu's Unity desktop until the patches can be refactored in a way that they are upstreamable. I'm willing to help where I can with any changes that lead to submittable packages. I'm not involved in this project anyway; If this is going forward, I don't mind co-maintaining a few packages, I would prefer the indicator stack as it's the components I know better. Either way my interventions were not meant to promote this initiative or to bash it. I've only tried to share a few issues I found in the past, though I'm willing to help co-maintaining a 'few' packages, not the whole stack, I don't have time for it. Note for the record - I'm perfectly willing to give up my maintainership of the few packages I own from my old abortive effort to package Unity. I have bamf, libindicator and probably one or two others I forgot about. If anyone wants these, just ping me. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/19/2012 07:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... I don't know what Ubuntu has been doing so far, but to be fair, probably all major Linux distros and, on a more general scope probably all OSes ship their own (more or less heavily modified) versions of GCC for many years - Neither Fedora nor RH are exceptions from this. Right, but the point is they're not using the Fedora one even though the packages are for Fedora. At a guess, bits of the Unity stack aren't ported to GCC 4.7 yet. Though it's usually not _too_ difficult to patch things to build okay with 4.7. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Note for the record - I'm perfectly willing to give up my maintainership of the few packages I own from my old abortive effort to package Unity. I have bamf, libindicator and probably one or two others I forgot about. If anyone wants these, just ping me. libindicator needs to be revved regardless. They pulled out dbusmenu as a separate small library now and libindictor depends on it. If I put dbusmenu package together would you care to do the review, and then we can rev libindicator? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
