Re: RFC: On-line Content Filtering of directories

--- Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to select, I want to hide everything but the expression. (Hmmm, you implying I'm abnormal? ;-) So are you a 'normal user'? Who is a 'normal user'?) IMHO, someone who very probably won't know what a glob pattern is :) Regards

Re: [PROPOSAL] 'Change Password GUI'

--- shakti [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Diego Gonzalez wrote: On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 18:10 +0530, shakti wrote: Hi, I would like to propose gnome-passwd (a password change GUI) for GNOME 2.12. GNOME currently doesn't have a GUI to change the user's password. This GUI can be

switching to g-c-c shell? [Was: Re: Control center and capplet merging]

On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:11 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: Merging items could be useful. However, I don't think just shoving the same existing UI into multiple tabs in a single dialog will help really. It will just mean less things in the menu, and more confusion to users who are looking for

[PROPOSAL] services-admin from g-s-t for 2.12

Hi everybody!, I haven't seen any proposal in the whole 2.11 period, so here's one to break the ice: I'm proposing services-admin from gnome-system-tools for 2.12, the last g-s-t version (1.3.0[.x]) compiles it by default, featuring a dead easy GUI [1] to activate/deactivate services, both in

Re: switching to g-c-c shell? [Was: Re: Control center and capplet merging]

--- Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 19:37 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: Some may think that it could encourage people to add more capplets, but that's already happening, in the last 2 releases we've added Multimedia systems selector, Remote desktop

RE: proposed modules [was Re: gnome-keyring-manager in 2.12]

Hey :), --- Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I've just updated the wiki: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTwoPointEleven_2fDesktop As of this moment, proposed modules are (AFAIK): * evince: seems to be a strong consensus for this * gnome-keyring-manager: I've not heard a

Re: proposed modules [was Re: gnome-keyring-manager in 2.12]

--- Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On 7/14/05, Carlos Garnacho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey :), --- Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I've just updated the wiki: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTwoPointEleven_2fDesktop As of this moment, proposed

Re: Gtk+ 2.8 for GNOME 2.12

--- Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: snip As for my position on this: I was at first reluctant to the shipping with GTK+ 2.8 option, but I really believe we can find the problems if it gets tested *now*. So I'm all for GTK+ 2.8 *now*. Besides a couple of visual glitches in XFree86

gnome-system-tools branched

Hi, gnome-system-tools has been branched, 2.12 stuff will go to the gnome-2-12 branch. I initially wanted to dump all the liboobs work to HEAD, but didn't have enough time during this release cicle, so it will go to liboobs-branch and HEAD will contain several small UI and strings improvements

gnome-system-tools branched for 2.14

Resent, it seems it didn't arrive, apologies for any duplicate... On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 18:42 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: Hello all, As usual, there's now a gnome-2-14 branch, which will be left in the cold, being fed with small maintenance patches until it finally dies. HEAD will get

Re: Winners of today's build breakages

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 08:30 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: On 7/26/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (0) currently running 2.15.90 For what it's worth, I am currently running 2.15.90, built from the source in GARNOME CVS-HEAD (1) dbus API deprecation issues There are

Re: Winners of today's build breakages

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 16:36 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote: Carlos Garnacho wrote: This decision saddens me... I should mention that there's an internal copy of Net::DBus in CVS since July 7th, it's just that I've lacked both time and internet connection to make tarballs, I'll work

Re: gnome desktop integration library

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 22:56 +0200, Chipzz wrote: On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote: Why can't gtk depend on dbus? How do those reasons not apply to libgnome? I don't know, I'm asking. But there's no reason to just make an assumption up front that gtk can't depend on dbus, or

Re: gnome desktop integration library

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 15:42 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: snip If you look at for example the GdkSession sketch I posted though, people seem to feel that is GNOME specific for some reasons I don't understand at all; the functionality is completely implementable on Windows and KDE I know,

gnome-system-tools and liboobs branched for gnome 2.16

Hi, Don't know if it's useful information, but it's worth telling: g-s-t and liboobs now have the fictional gnome-2-16 branch, although the DBus changes didn't get into GNOME 2.16, some distro(s?) chose to ship it, and they're being told to use stuff from this branch. future plans in HEAD may be

Re: Important changes to gnome-doc-utils

Hi!, On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 02:21 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: Luca Ferretti wrote: I'm rebuilding my jhbuild sandbox, so I'll file a bug every fault. In the list of bad guys, by now I have gnome-desktop [1] and gnome-control-center[2] There is also at least gnome-applets[1],

Re: Liboobs versions

Hi!, On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 03:13 -0300, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez wrote: Hi all, gnome-system-tools now depends on liboobs 2.17.4 while http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/jhbuild/modulesets/freedesktop-2.18.modules?rev=1.8, which is used by the GNOME 2.18 moduleset, still lists 0.6.0.

Re: Proposal: NetworkManager for GNOME 2.18.

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Dan Williams If it's a priority, it can certainly be done. I don't think this is wildly important - it'll just increase maintainership requirements for you unnecessarily. What we do need, however, is some kind of

Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

Hi!, As seen on http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies system-tools-backends minimum dependency version is 1.9.7, it would be great to upgrade that dependency to 2.1.2, it features the extensible list of supported interface configuration methods and wireless key types (for

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

CCing the release team, it would be really nice if it got in 2.17.x before the freezes. To take advantage of this feature, changes are required in liboobs and g-s-t... Regards, Carlos On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 20:11 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: Hi!, As seen on http://live.gnome.org

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

built within GARNOME-2.17.x on a linuxPPC running Fedora FC6. Hopefully, whatever problems there are can be resolved soon. -Joseph == On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 20:11 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: Hi!, As seen

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

Hi Vincent! On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:21 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Le jeudi 04 janvier 2007, à 20:11, Carlos Garnacho a écrit : Hi!, As seen on http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies system-tools-backends minimum dependency version is 1.9.7, it would be great

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:49 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Le lundi 08 janvier 2007, à 19:28, Carlos Garnacho a écrit : I've just rolled liboobs and g-s-t without the feature before the freezes are in effect, anyway it could be great to add 2.1.x as the recommended version, but I guess

system-tools-backends 2.2.0 released

Hi!, As promised, I've recently made a stable release of system-tools-backends (2.2.0) in time for 2.18, I encourage that GNOME 2.18 recommends this one. Regards, Carlos ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Re: problems with system-tools-backends-2.2.0

On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 12:46 -0300, Carlos Eduardo Rodrigues Diógenes wrote: Hi, I just compile GNOME 2.18.0 and get in troubles with system-tools-backends. After trying to catch the error I realized that the SystemToolsBackends.pl script is used by it. When I run this file, like: perl

g-s-t and liboobs branched for 2.18

Hi all!, gnome-system-tools and liboobs have been branched for gnome-2-18, most notable future changes/features are outlined in the roadmap :) Regards, Carlos ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

gnome-system-tools and liboobs branched for 2.20

Hi!, I've just branched g-s-t and liboobs for 2.20, development for 2.21 will happen in trunk as usual, future plans include: - hal integration - rtnetlink integration (linux only) - optional PolicyKit use - all I couldn't do for 2.20 Regards, Carlos

Update external dependency: system-tools-backends

Hi all!, I've just released system-tools-backends 2.4.0, this release was intended to be synchronized with the 2.20 schedule, and I'd like it to be the recommended version, The minimum version can stay as it is, as they're compatible. Reasons? Lots of bugfixing, and being able to set WPA in

Re: GtkNotebook scrolling usability

Hi! :), On mié, 2010-03-10 at 16:50 -0600, Cody Russell wrote: So, right now GtkNotebook allows you to change tabs by using the mouse wheel. Once I noticed this and the more I thought about it, it really seems like a terrible feature and one that may be detrimental to usability. I may

Re: String and UI Change Announcement Period

Hi! On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 23:31 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Hi all, We'll enter the String and UI Change Announcement Period at the end of tomorrow. This means that starting on Tuesday: - all string changes must be announced to both gnome-i18n@ and gnome-doc-l...@. - all user

Adwaita finished [Was: Re: String and UI Change Announcement Period]

Hi all, On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 01:22 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: Hi! On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 23:31 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Hi all, We'll enter the String and UI Change Announcement Period at the end of tomorrow. This means that starting on Tuesday: - all string changes must

Re: Adwaita finished [Was: Re: String and UI Change Announcement Period]

Hey, On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 13:02 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 11:55 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: snip I consider myself mostly done with making the Adwaita theme look like the mockups, everything needed is now in gtk+, gtk-theme-engine-clearlooks (although it could

Re: Dealing with GTK 3.3.18 scrolling handling changes for GNOME 3.4

Hey, In order to provide some background to the ML, scroll events were being sent to widgets with GDK_BUTTON_PRESS_MASK (no scroll mask required), but this played odd with smooth scrolling as scrolled windows get scroll events in 2 ways: 1) bubbled up from the child within 2) received directly

Re: Dealing with GTK 3.3.18 scrolling handling changes for GNOME 3.4

On vie, 2012-03-16 at 12:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: So gtk_widget_add_events (widget, GDK_SCROLL_MASK); for every widget for which we want the old behaviour back, correct? Sounds doable by 3.4. Exactly, it's pretty much that snip 0) Patch affected applications I think that

Re: Dealing with GTK 3.3.18 scrolling handling changes for GNOME 3.4

On vie, 2012-03-16 at 13:59 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Le 16/03/2012 13:50, Patryk Zawadzki a écrit : Shouldn't that be the case unless you explicitly ask for GDK_SMOOTH_SCROLL_MASK? Well then maybe there is a bug in GTK with scale widgets, sliders stopped reacting to up,down scroll

Re: touch screen support

Hey Richard, On vie, 2014-01-17 at 18:07 +, Richard Henwood wrote: Hi All, I have been using gnome 3.10 with a touch screen and gnome 3.8 with a stylus+tablet using absolute positioning. With both interfaces, I have the following pain points: + I can't access the bar at the bottom

Re: Possible data loss with Tracker 1.3.x

Hey everyone, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Bastien Nocera had...@hadess.net wrote: Hey, Tracker 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 had a bug that made them fail to start: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=743727 However, after 1.3.4 fixed that problem, we caught a bug in the database migration

Re: 3.20 target bugs

Hey, (CCing the Tracker ML for this one) On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > While we are still waiting for 3.19.90 to appear, here is an initial > review of the bugs that have been marked as "GNOME target: 3.20" > during this cycle. Since this

Re: Gnome "opt-in" functionality.

Hi, On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:17:13AM +1000, Daniel Kasak wrote: >> On my system, when I start gnome ( I usually use Enlightenment ), I >> see both tracker and evolution processes taking about 192MB of memory. >> I

Re: Tracker as a security risks

Hey Philip :), On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Philip Withnall <phi...@tecnocode.co.uk> wrote: > Hey, > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:42 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Hanno Böck <ha...@hboeck.de> wrote: >> > On Mon, 5 Dec 201

Re: Tracker as a security risks

Hi, On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:44:40 + > Sam Thursfield wrote: > >> The design of Tracker takes the risks into account. Metadata >> extraction is isolated in its own process (tracker-extract) which can >>

Re: A little experiment: GNOME on wayland-only?

Hi!, On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 2:14 PM Javier Jardón wrote: > Hi, > > This weekend I was curios about how difficult would be to have GNOME > in a wayland-only system > > Thanks to building GNOME in a sandbox (thanks to buildstream and > bwrap) and also thanks on using freedesktop-sdk as a base we