I'm sure lots of people have raised the issue that although most of the panel
can be made transparent, when the panel is resized not to cover the entire
width, the handles that show up do not accept transparency values.
This is unacceptable, right? these handles look pretty much like gtk1.0
During the first few months of 2008, a few Release Team members
discussed here and there about the state of GNOME. This was nothing
official, and it could actually have been considered as some friends
talking together about things they deeply care about. There were
thoughts that GNOME could stay
Ahoj,
a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven .
The schedule also includes a plan to clean up the platform by getting
rid of deprecated modules.
Maintainers can see the GNOME 3 readiness of their modules on Frederic's
2009/4/2 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net:
Ahoj,
a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven .
The schedule also includes a plan to clean up the platform by getting
rid of deprecated modules.
Maintainers can see the GNOME 3
Hi!
- create a staging area in the platform for libraries that aim to be in
our platform but do not offer enough guarantees at the moment (like
GStreamer): this will send a clear message on what should be used;
- include new exciting technologies that we're starting to see used in
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schmid:
What about gconf/dconf? Or in other words - does GNOME 3.0 depend on
dconf and is gconf deprecated (soon!) or not?
No decisions yet, but definitely should be discussed after desrt and/or
robtaylor have posted a follow-up mail
Vincent Untz wrote:
During the first few months of 2008, a few Release Team members
discussed here and there about the state of GNOME. This was nothing
Wow, long interesting email! I'll limit myself to one area:
- Promotion of GNOME
This does seems to be lacking. If you go to
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schmid:
What about gconf/dconf? Or in other words - does GNOME 3.0 depend on
dconf and is gconf deprecated (soon!) or not?
No decisions yet, but definitely should be
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Natan Yellin aan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
- Changing the way we access documents (via a journal, like GNOME
Zeitgeist [3]): having to deal with a filesystem in their daily work
is not what
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schmid:
What about gconf/dconf? Or in other words - does GNOME 3.0 depend on
dconf and is gconf deprecated (soon!) or not?
No decisions yet, but definitely should be
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
* Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on
Bonobo)
There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that
Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin
2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
* Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on
Bonobo)
There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that
there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not
really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would
need a lot of work.
There being no
2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that
there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not
really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
* Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 14:26 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
Well, at this point we have someone willing to write a piece of
software with loads of benefits and some code available over GConf and
none volunteering on doing the merge. Unless you are volunteering
yourself :-)
Actually, looking at the
Mike,
We'd love to have your help. We really need help defining what GNOME is to
non-hackers and promoting it appropriately on the website and in
presentations people give. You are right that the about page doesn't
actually say what GNOME is!
The marketing list[1] would be a good place to
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 14:30 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
* Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
* Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on
Bonobo)
There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that
Imendio
2009/4/2 Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org:
- include new exciting technologies that we're starting to see used in
our desktop. Some obvious examples are 3D effects (with Clutter) and
geolocalization (with GeoClue and libchamplain).
Thanks for mentionning libchamplain. Just in case anyone
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven .
The libglade/GtkBuilder transition is on the plan to begin at the end
of this month. Currently the transition
For the accessibility portion, here's some strawman stuff that will be
solidified soon (I hope):
1) Luke Yelavich at Canonical is planning on looking at speech
dispatcher as a proposed replacement for gnome-speech. If he gets
support from his management to do the work and is successful at
Hello, d-d-l.
I'm a long-time listener, first time caller.
Many of you are probably aware of two things about me:
0) I'm that guy who is working on that weird cloud of dbus-ish stuff
involving GVariant and dconf and GSettings, etc.
1) A few months ago I started working for Codethink
I'm really excited about GNOME 3.0. There are a lot of great ideas
that people have come up with.
As people work on new GUI designs, I request that people engage the
GNOME accessibility team on their designs. Accessibility is a big
selling point for GNOME and I'd really hate to see it take
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven .
The libglade/GtkBuilder transition is
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at
Hi!
I add another question here, as a complete dconf/GConf newbie:
is depending on Bonobo/Corba vs DBus the only thing that makes GConf not
useful towards GNOME 3.0 or are there some other
design/preformance/whatever issues requiring a full rewrite to be
solved?
Performance (especially on
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
first: GVariant.
For those of us who are ignorant, like me: what is GVariant, how does
it relate to GValue, will it deprecate GValue and if so, why is it not
possible to just fix GValue instead? It's not in your email which
Ross Burton wrote:
Is a GConf compatibility layer possible, or are there too many semantic
differences?
The type system of dbus (and therefore GVariant and dconf) is a superset
of the type system of GConf -- any value that can be stored in GConf can
be stored in dconf. Due to the simple
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 16:56 + schrieb Stef Walter:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
It would be really helpful for this to get some feedback from people
who have already done a conversion to GtkBuilder. What were the
gotchas ? What are the tricks that one needs to know ?
I've worked
I think dconf is a great project, but I do have one question. Will the
new dconf address the sorts of D-Bus problems raised in these GConf
bugs?
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555745
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17970
Thanks,
Brian
On 04/02/09 10:37, Ryan
Ryan:
I was not familiar with these bugs.
I'm glad to bring them to your attention, then, since I think it
relates to the work in dconf.
One thing is definitely true: for reading from the configuration
settings, these bugs will not be an issue because you don't need to use
the bus or
Brian Cameron wrote:
Ryan:
I was not familiar with these bugs.
I'm glad to bring them to your attention, then, since I think it
relates to the work in dconf.
One thing is definitely true: for reading from the configuration
settings, these bugs will not be an issue because you don't
Rob:
My question would be is why do these People have a desktop in which
there isn't a DBus session bus? Its been there for a very long time now
in most distros, afact. For gnome 3.0, running without a session bus is
going to be like running gnome 2.0 without orbit2. i.e. it ain't gonna
work
On 04/02/2009 02:39 PM, Rob Taylor wrote:
My question would be is why do these People have a desktop in which
there isn't a DBus session bus?
The case were people in corporate Microdows environment have to manage a
Linux box, and have to run UI application to the X11 server on the
Windows
Le jeudi 02 avril 2009 à 19:39 +0100, Rob Taylor a écrit :
My question would be is why do these People have a desktop in which
there isn't a DBus session bus? Its been there for a very long time now
in most distros, afact. For gnome 3.0, running without a session bus is
going to be like
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Xavier Bestel xavier.bes...@free.fr wrote:
Le jeudi 02 avril 2009 à 19:39 +0100, Rob Taylor a écrit :
My question would be is why do these People have a desktop in which
there isn't a DBus session bus? Its been there for a very long time now
in most distros,
Can current gconf settings be easily loaded into dconf? e.g. can someone
launching into a gnome 3.0, dconf-based, system for the first time still
have the same wallpaper settings as they did before?
I'm assuming that a) the settings still make sense and b) that the
application can provide a
On 4/2/09, Stef Walter stef-l...@memberwebs.com wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
It would be really helpful for this to get some feedback from people
who have already done a conversion to GtkBuilder. What were the
gotchas ? What are the tricks that one needs to know ?
I've worked with
Stable releases will be made from branches/gnome-2-26. Development
will happen on trunk.
Cheers,
Stef Walter
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
I need the help of a Desktop session genius (is there a gnome-session
mailing list?).
- gvfs has an SSH module which uses OpenSSH.
- OpenSSH checks for the presence of the SSH_AUTH_SOCK environment
variable in order to integrate with SSH agents.
- gnome-keyring-daemon is started from by
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Stef Walter stef-l...@memberwebs.com wrote:
I've received a suggestion to use 'UpdateActivationEnvironment'. Where
is this mythical creature implemented and/or documented?
It is part of the org.freedesktop.DBus interface since dbus 1.2.3. You
can see it in
42 matches
Mail list logo
