On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 19:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/21/06, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before recommending that everyone use GUnique, could we define a
migration path for it to enter the platform? We really don't need yet
another
shared library, and yet another module to
quote who=Alexander Larsson
Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
Because clearly you would be hit by a bus if you considered such outrageous
notions.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
Whatcha wanna be when you grow up?
On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
*shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
each of those for their single-instance mechanism) and X (which
Matthias
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 19:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
I agree that we don't really want another shared library, long term.
Luckily, it should be easy to update apps when GUnique becomes part of
some other library, as the code required to use GUnique is pretty
small. As to how we get there,
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external dependencies,
and use tarball modules for them in the
quote who=Richard Hughes
I also think one of the reasons it was not written with gtk+ as a target
was the level choice i.e. does this stuff belong in gtk+, libgnome,
insert_project_ridley_module_here or some other module.
It's really important we put a lid in this kind of confusion quickly,
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:03 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Richard Hughes
I also think one of the reasons it was not written with gtk+ as a target
was the level choice i.e. does this stuff belong in gtk+, libgnome,
insert_project_ridley_module_here or some other module.
It's really
On 22/09/06, David Zeuthen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:09 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
GARNOME does not roll or maintain source tarballs for developers.
I do not know of any stable Linux distro that currently offers a new
enough version of udev that provides
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 12:03 +0200, Rob Bradford wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
*shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
each of
Hi;
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:49 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
*shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
each of those for their single-instance mechanism) and X (which
Matthias brought up
Jürg,
Thank you for introducing me to yet another GNU/Linux distro. Variety
and innovation are things I truly love about the open source movement.
The issue with HAL-0.5.8.x is one of timing. David jumped the gun by
removing the source code for libvolume_id from HAL. Had he waited a few
months,
On 9/22/06, Rob Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external
Alexander Larsson wrote:
One advantage of using X would be that it works for remote X clients
too.
I think it'd be a mistake to start using X for all ipc for that reason -
you'd end up never using dbus, and X is kind of a sucky IPC.
To solve this for dbus there are two basic approaches, one
Richard Hughes wrote:
No stick taken :-) For me, is the dependency issue. Can gtk+ depend on
DBUS? If the answer is yes, then the decision is a no-brainer - put
libguniqueapp into gtk.
Remember the question isn't just can it depend but how, cf.
I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
[ ] liboil-0.3.7.tar.gz 02-Feb-2006 23:06 804K
[ ] liboil-0.3.8.tar.gz 21-Mar-2006 18:22 815K
[ ] liboil-0.3.9.tar.gz 22-May-2006 21:41 814K
dbus-glib
fre, 22,.09.2006 kl. 12.03 +0200, skrev Rob Bradford:
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external
tor, 21,.09.2006 kl. 16.51 -0600, skrev Elijah Newren:
On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external dependencies,
and use tarball modules for them in the
fre, 22,.09.2006 kl. 10.34 -0400, skrev Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D.:
I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
[ ] liboil-0.3.7.tar.gz 02-Feb-2006 23:06 804K
[ ] liboil-0.3.8.tar.gz 21-Mar-2006 18:22 815K
On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
[ ] liboil-0.3.7.tar.gz 02-Feb-2006 23:06 804K
[ ] liboil-0.3.8.tar.gz 21-Mar-2006 18:22 815K
[ ]
oops... middle-aged eyesight... [blush..]
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:43 +0200, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
fre, 22,.09.2006 kl. 10.34 -0400, skrev Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D.:
I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
[
Mattias,
I believe that you are correct [for the moment]. I took a quick look
through apps in GARNOME-2.16.x dependent up dbus. I found that
dbus-0.70, required by gnome-power-manager-2.17.1, appears to be good
enough for now.
-Joseph
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:09 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
GARNOME does not roll or maintain source tarballs for developers.
But it's not so uncommon for GARNOME to patch its tarballs. Isn't that a
possible solution to this awkwardness, even if it's just for GARNOME?
I do not know of any
On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mattias,
I believe that you are correct [for the moment]. I took a quick look
through apps in GARNOME-2.16.x dependent up dbus. I found that
dbus-0.70, required by gnome-power-manager-2.17.1, appears to be good
enough for now.
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
*shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
each of
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 09:38 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
A GAR makefile to accomplish this is shown
below. David, as well as others within the community, should be
pleased.
Awesome. Thanks for doing this!
David
___
desktop-devel-list
David,
You are welcome. The open source movement is all about we, not I.
I will update GARNOME CVS-HEAD this weekend to give our users the
opportunity to exercise HAL-0.5.8.1.
Be well,
-Joseph
===
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 11:36 -0400,
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 05:49 -0400, Richard Hughes wrote:
So I propose, tell maintainers to link against linguniqueapp (as it's
more sane that what we have already[1]) and then depreciate it in a
couple of years time when we've decided where it belongs. This means
maintainers like me get
Hey, Brian!
Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
as well not even call this GNOME!
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0300, brian muhumuza wrote:
http://live.gnome.org/BrianMuhumuza/ToPaZ
--
Alex Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/22/06, Alex Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, Brian!
Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
as well not even call this GNOME!
Not having seen the mockups at all, but... so? I believe we call that
'thinking outside the box'.
Luis
On Fri, 2006-09-22
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 14:05 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 9/22/06, Alex Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, Brian!
Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
as well not even call this GNOME!
Not having seen the mockups at all, but... so? I believe we call
On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/22/06, Rob Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
quote who=Alex Jones
Whatever crazy ideas people come up with, you can never guarantee that
they are going to be universally better than what we currently have. As
such, with something as completely, drastically different, I see no
benefit in calling this GNOME 3.0.
The reason we came up
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 19:01 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
Hey, Brian!
Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
as well not even call this GNOME!
having seen the mock-ups, I'd say that Brian took the Gimmie UI and
pumped it up on steroids; not that I say it's not
On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mattias,
I believe that you are correct [for the moment]. I took a quick look
through apps in GARNOME-2.16.x dependent up dbus. I found that
dbus-0.70, required by
Thanks Jeff for the quick and right answer :)
--
Verso l'Alto !
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
36 matches
Mail list logo
