James Henstridge wrote:
> On 26/07/06, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7/26/06, James Henstridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 1. gnome-settings-daemon is modified to set the gtk-modules XSETTING,
>>> based on the existing gconf key. If accessibility is enabled, it sets
>>> it t
Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 23:43 -0400, Luis Villa a écrit :
> Ubuntu does better than anyone has done it since... well, a long time,
> at any rate. And by Ubuntu I mostly mean *you*, which makes me worry
> about burnout, sustainability, etc., but that's a different
> discussion, probably.
Right,
It's probably libbonoboui that needs to add libgail-gnome as an
additional module.
I am a little uneasy about making this change so late, but if someone
volunteers to help test, I'd be OK with it.
Bill
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 15:34, Jani Monoses wrote:
> James Henstridge wrote:
> > I think you'll
James Henstridge wrote:
> I think you'll agree that we want a11y enabled for all GTK
> applications, and the best way to do this is to make the
> initialisation happen in gtk_init(). The gtk-modules XSETTING makes
> this possible. The proposed method of getting things loaded is:
>
> 1. gnome-set
On 7/26/06, Brian Nitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 7/19/06, Dan Winship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Luis Villa wrote:
> >>
> >>> * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> >>> (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
> >>
Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 09:05 -0400, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> On 7/26/06, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Humm I'm seeing a problem here. What about GNOME/GTK+ applications
> > launched outside a gnome-session? (for example people using KDE).
> >
> > They won't get the gtk
On 7/26/06, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Humm I'm seeing a problem here. What about GNOME/GTK+ applications
> launched outside a gnome-session? (for example people using KDE).
>
> They won't get the gtk-modules XSETTING and then they won't be accesible at
> all.
>
> I guess that
Humm I'm seeing a problem here. What about GNOME/GTK+ applications
launched outside a gnome-session? (for example people using KDE).
They won't get the gtk-modules XSETTING and then they won't be accesible at all.
I guess that the solution that Kristian pointed (gtk loading auto
loading "runtime
Luis Villa wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Dan Winship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Luis Villa wrote:
>>
>>> * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
>>> (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
>>>
>> So now that we've got XML-RPC support in bugzi
On 26/07/06, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/26/06, James Henstridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. gnome-settings-daemon is modified to set the gtk-modules XSETTING,
> > based on the existing gconf key. If accessibility is enabled, it sets
> > it to "libgail:libatk-bridge".
On 7/26/06, James Henstridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. gnome-settings-daemon is modified to set the gtk-modules XSETTING,
> based on the existing gconf key. If accessibility is enabled, it sets
> it to "libgail:libatk-bridge".
So if we are moving to this solution we could also add a
"gnome_
On 26/07/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 19:20, James Henstridge wrote:
>
> >
> > Havoc's summary at the bottom of his email says why the current
> > gnome_program_init() code is a hack:
> >
> > > > In summary:
> > > > - if every libgtk app should do something,
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 19:20, James Henstridge wrote:
>
> Havoc's summary at the bottom of his email says why the current
> gnome_program_init() code is a hack:
>
> > > In summary:
> > > - if every libgtk app should do something, get that code in gtk
(in the olden days this was not acceptable t
On 26/07/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 17:57, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > ...
>
> > It's just that people were too lazy to fix
> > it generically, and instead went on a cut-and-paste spree. That the
> > cut-and-paste spree included libgnome and thus got some s
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:29, Elijah Newren wrote:
> accessibility was cc'ed on the bug
A bug alias was cc'd, but not one of the 'live' a11y lists.
It happened during my sabbatical, so I didn't see it.
However - when I saw the diff I was concerned to see the module-loading
code removed; what I d
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 17:57, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> ...
> It's just that people were too lazy to fix
> it generically, and instead went on a cut-and-paste spree. That the
> cut-and-paste spree included libgnome and thus got some subset of apps
> all at once hardly changes the basic situatio
Bill Haneman wrote:
> Looks to me as though this has caused a major regression, if I
> understand correctly.
>
> Back in the ancient days when the AT support was initially being added,
> we were discouraged from relying on environment variables to control the
> loading of accessibility modules. T
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 17:12, Matthias Clasen wrote:
...
> We added the gtk-modules setting a long time ago. IIRC, the main
> purpose was to replace the use of GTK_MODULES for a11y, but that
> never happened...
I guess I don't fully understand the gtk-modules xsetting or how it
works. If not for 2
On 7/25/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A better solution would be to use an XSETTING for a11y instead of just a
> gconf key, so that apps could detect it w/o a gconf dependency. This
> has been discussed in the past and seems to me it would have been better
> than ripping the gnome_
Looks to me as though this has caused a major regression, if I
understand correctly.
Back in the ancient days when the AT support was initially being added,
we were discouraged from relying on environment variables to control the
loading of accessibility modules. The gconf and gnome_program_init
On 7/25/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because of build issues I have not been able to test a11y with
> gnome-session HEAD.
>
> Are you telling me that a11y is regressed severely in HEAD, as it
> sounds?
No, I'd have to know whether it was in order to say so. I just
finally caught
Because of build issues I have not been able to test a11y with
gnome-session HEAD.
Are you telling me that a11y is regressed severely in HEAD, as it
sounds?
GTK_MODULES alone will NOT work for the gnome desktop as a whole, since
libgail-gnome should be selectively included.
Elijah, why didn't yo
On 7/19/06, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Haneman wrote:
> > gnome_program_init also loads the accessibility support, calling gconf
> > in the process. It's not clear to me that this could conveniently be
> > put elsewhere without complicating the dependencies of other modules
(Sigh. This will teach me to send emails at 3am. Luckily in a week
you're all rid of me for several years ;)
On 7/19/06, Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On mer, 2006-07-19 at 03:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> >
On 7/19/06, Dan Winship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> > (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
>
> So now that we've got XML-RPC support in bugzilla, it would be insanely
> cool if someone
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 11:36:28AM +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
> > Well, the other thing that the gnome_program_init provides (as I
> > understand it) is the bug-buddy hooks. However, IMHO, this is more of a
> > distro thing. Ubuntu's solution
> > (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutomatedProblemReports)
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 17:01, Shaun McCance wrote:
> Hey Bill,
>
> As usual, I'm afraid most of us don't understand all the layers
> as well as we ought to. Could you clarify exactly which pieces
> of the accessibility stack wouldn't get activated? There are
> a lot of GTK-only applications, pro
I have to disagree. As I recall the history, it was the
GTK_MODULES/gtk+ fix that caught most of the flak (and still does,
relying as it does on an env variable). At the time that the gconf key
for assistive technology support was first introduced, nobody called it
a hack.
Now that we have xsett
Bill Haneman wrote:
> gnome_program_init also loads the accessibility support, calling gconf
> in the process. It's not clear to me that this could conveniently be
> put elsewhere without complicating the dependencies of other modules...
>
This is a broken hack that should have been killed long
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 11:36 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
> > the GnomeClient API is for some apps the single Gnome dependency that
> > has no GTK equivalent and that keeps said apps tied to the >25 or so
> > platform libraries. Other libgnome(ui) uses are gnome_program_init() and
> > gnome_help_displ
On mer, 2006-07-19 at 09:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> I was in discussions with another maintainer of core GNOME modules (that
> shall remained anonymous), and we were not very impressed at the way
> Ubuntu forwarded bugs.
Right, there is probably nothing to be impressed about but we try to
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 09:09 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> > (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
>
> So now that we've got XML-RPC support in bugzilla, it would be insanely
> cool if some
Luis Villa wrote:
> * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
So now that we've got XML-RPC support in bugzilla, it would be insanely
cool if someone could write interfaces and code to let you do
cross-bugzilla r
> the GnomeClient API is for some apps the single Gnome dependency that
> has no GTK equivalent and that keeps said apps tied to the >25 or so
> platform libraries. Other libgnome(ui) uses are gnome_program_init() and
> gnome_help_display() which can be replaced by gtk_init variants and
> directly
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 10:21 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> On mer, 2006-07-19 at 03:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> > (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
>
> I though we were doing a pretty good job at
On mer, 2006-07-19 at 03:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> * distros are all crap at getting their bugs upstream, pretty much.
> (Some are slightly better than others, at various times.)
I though we were doing a pretty good job at forwarding Ubuntu bugs
upstream, but apparently it looks like you don'
On 7/19/06, Ben Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the other thing that the gnome_program_init provides (as I
> understand it) is the bug-buddy hooks. However, IMHO, this is more of a
> distro thing. Ubuntu's solution
> (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutomatedProblemReports) seems to be better her
Hey,
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jani Monoses wrote:
> the GnomeClient API is for some apps the single Gnome dependency that
> has no GTK equivalent and that keeps said apps tied to the >25 or so
> platform libraries. Other libgnome(ui) uses are gnome_program_init() and
Yes! Fixing this will be very goo
Hello,
the GnomeClient API is for some apps the single Gnome dependency that
has no GTK equivalent and that keeps said apps tied to the >25 or so
platform libraries. Other libgnome(ui) uses are gnome_program_init() and
gnome_help_display() which can be replaced by gtk_init variants and
directly sp
39 matches
Mail list logo
