Re: The wonders of cut'n'paste code

2005-01-25 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 18:34 +0100, Kjartan Maraas wrote: Found this in bugzilla: From bugreport http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123570 Regarding a patch to avoid sending multiple dock requests to the same window: Someone needs to get this in GTK. It shouldn't be a ton of work,

Re: Request for breakage in gnome-panel

2005-02-13 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 07:23 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote: It was predictable that a very user-visible UI change was rejected three weeks (three weeks!) after the UI freeze? I should hope so. It was predictable that I don't want to scrap my notes and outlines for the User Guide work,

Re: Exciting GNOME?

2005-02-14 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 09:35 -0800, Rob Adams wrote: Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch. Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited. Maybe metacity needs plugable

Re: moving windows above the top panel

2005-02-14 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 23:55 +, Alan Cox wrote: it can be resized, not all widgets will be visible (or, in the case of Qt, it will show some Really Ugly (TM) scrolling bars or scrolling arrows). This is hardly a solution. The real problem here is the fact that the developers don't

Re: Revitalizing the Urban Center of GNOME

2005-02-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:17 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Seth Nickell To give a very graphic illustration of this based on a search of the archives, Havoc's last post to desktop-devel was over a year ago. Two days ago. :-) I think I do what most people do though, and browse

Re: roadmap status update/update request

2005-03-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Voting is bad because most of the developers would actively ignore it, and flame anyone who suggested they should pay attention to it. Thus it's only going to get everyone (users and developers) thoroughly pissed off. If users want a feature and it's already in bugzilla, then the only useful

Re: Just a question

2005-04-10 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 19:58 +0200, Topaz wrote: In fact, my attraction is smoother than the 'shift key' one, window can be attracted by other windows or by screen border. Moreover the attraction gap is gconf controlled. So this is why I thought it is an improvement. There's definitely a

Re: GUADEC Hacking

2005-04-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 19:30 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: As GConf supports pluggable backends now, I wouldn't be surprised if a prototype database backend could be hacked up in a day. Why wait for DConf (assuming it actually fixes the other problems and doesn't end up being another system

Re: GUADEC Hacking

2005-04-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 19:09 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: yes we know its disk seeks that are causing the problem and secondly GConf is the most disk intensive service at start up and lastly due to its design of having loads of files that need to be read. Put all three together... I'm a

Re: Double-clicking titlebar = minimize

2005-04-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 19:05 +0200, Thom Holwerda wrote: PS: Maybe time for a metacity(-devel) list? Encouraging more discussion on random WM features is not my idea of a good time ;-) Bugzilla is perfectly adequate for all the _development_ that is going on (not much honestly, and it's most

Re: Sound themes and metacity sounds

2005-05-22 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 14:38 +0200, BJrn Lindqvist wrote: Another flaw is also that Metacity doesn't support sounds. Currently, Gnome can only add sounds to events that happen within gtk and Gnome events. That mean that you can add sounds to startup and when you click on gtk buttons. But you

Re: Does StartupNotify=true harm non-GNOME/GTK applications?

2005-05-23 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 15:52 +0200, Kai Weber wrote: Hi, I hope I picked the right list to ask. If I add StartupNotify=true to the .desktop file of a Non-GNOME/GTK application could this lead to problems? StartupNotify=true means this application supports the startup notification protocol

Re: panel applet Warnings

2005-05-23 Thread Havoc Pennington
It's just a typo: On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 15:25 -0230, Craig Harding wrote: gtk_container_remove (GTK_CONTAINER (play_event_box), play_button); gtk_container_add (GTK_CONTAINER (play_event_box), pause_button);

Re: Three Point Zero - Idea Mockups

2005-05-25 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 21:58 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: I was under the impression that if GNOME 3 ever happens, it's most likely to be by re-integrating a fork that went off to (successfully) explore new ideas. In other words, there's nothing really to decide - one day if somebody produces a

Re: Three Point Zero - Idea Mockups

2005-05-26 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 13:35 +0100, Calum Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 02:47, Havoc Pennington wrote: Look at the highlights of a major version of OS X: However, it is still OS X... even their claimed 250+ new features didn't warrant the release of OS XI, which (despite

Re: Three Point Zero - Idea Mockups

2005-05-26 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, You kind of replied here as if you were arguing, but I think what you said is consistent with what I said ;-) so just checking. On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:58 -0400, Nat Friedman wrote: On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:28 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: I think for us to jump product generations

Re: Three Point Zero - Idea Mockups

2005-05-26 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 21:52 +0200, BJrn Lindqvist wrote: But still, wasn't gnome 2 more or less a rewrite of gnome 1? Yes, GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 is in many ways exactly what I'd want to avoid. ;-) We salvaged it and got some user value out of it, but it was more despite the way we went about it

Re: Three Point Zero - Idea Mockups

2005-05-26 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 14:00 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: It's precisely why people believe that in order to move one generation forward, you need to start over. Sure, this whole thread is trying to correct that perception though. Havoc ___

Re: ANNOUNCE: Deskbar Applet 0.3 (keybindings)

2005-06-30 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:07 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: Popping heads up on this tread again- Jonathan, Jody, what will it take to get this patch in for 2.12? It looks like this patch is adding global keybinding stuff to g-s-d, but we already put it in metacity instead, so we'd only want the UI

Re: Remove AccessX from strings of Keyboard Accessibilty capplet

2005-07-03 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 23:23 +0200, Jaap Haitsma wrote: Is now a good time to drop AccessX from the strings? Yes please! Havoc ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

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

2005-07-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 14:15 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: In these cases, it would be good to be able to find a way to get access without too much trouble like a troubleshooter system that tells you where to go if the default multimedia stuff doesn't work. I don't want to be too sarcastic

Re: Old versions of GNOME [was: Re: gtk 2.8 for gnome 2.12]

2005-07-22 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 09:24 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: (2) Obviously the distros want to include an incredibly minimal set of patches in their maintenance releases. But those releases also lag anywhere between months and years behind HEAD. Better collaborative 'enterprise' management of the

Re: [PATCH] make Open Location dialog multihead aware

2005-07-27 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 12:18 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: Seems like Metacity ought to have that placement algorithm built in so nautilus and any other span-multiple-xinerama windows can just work (after all, Metacity is the one that chooses center on parent already anyway, and appears to

Re: Announcing: Project Ridley

2005-08-21 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 14:05 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: One thing I (as an end developer) would like is for libgobject to be merged with libglib That's off the table since it would break ABI ... I currently find the split to make some tasks impossible (for example, I recently wrote a

Re: Announcing: Project Ridley

2005-08-21 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 14:54 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: Grzegorz Dąbrowski wrote: It would be nice also include http://gtkglext.sourceforge.net/ I definitely concur here. gtkglext works very well as a GTK based OpenGL widget. I never thought to ask if there is interest in making it part

Re: Announcing: Project Ridley

2005-08-24 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 07:44 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote: On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 13:37 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: what about libsoup/network library? Wouldn't it also make sense to move it to a libgnet in glib? I'm also for this, right now we are using multiple networking libraries and we fix

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

2005-09-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 21:08 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: It doesn't exist. I think a metacity-list would be really really useful. Pretty please? :) Useful for what? ;-) ... all the doing work kind of discussions seem to be adequately handled by bugzilla. And I can certainly imagine a lot of

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

2005-09-12 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:34 -0400, Owen Williams wrote: Bugzilla is a good thing, but not if the maintainers seemingly ignore it. The solution may not be a new mailing list, but simply an increased level of responsiveness on bugzilla. I don't expect maintainers to chime in on every

Re: invalid arguments to public API: g_assert, g_return_if_fail or continue with undefined behavior

2005-09-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 20:11 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:02 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: I'd expect in a UI application they won't make much difference, but I do know that for the DBus port of EDS turning off asserts in DBus made a 20% improvement in the speed

Re: Unify metacity and libwnck menu icons as named icons

2005-10-19 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 22:04 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: My blue-sky is * icons are defined in libwnck and used in metacity * icons are themable via icon theme spec, not gtkrc metacity should not depend on libwnck, but it should be simple to change how metacity/libwnck register

Re: Denoting Remote Machines (Re: Custom Icons for GNOME Terminal Profiles)

2005-11-19 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 14:16 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: A feature like this might be interesting in Metacity. Same as Nautilus says documents on floyd it would be cool if Metacity could say MGiva on charlie17. This would be particularly useful when you're running the same application on

Re: Get the applications notified when session is closing

2005-11-19 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:56 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: I don't know why it isn't used. Perhaps someone else can shine some light on the reason. Apps are just sucking. Should file a bug vs. the apps that don't ask you to save... though it's admittedly overcomplex for apps to do it correctly at

Re: Alignment of multiple top-level windows

2005-12-28 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 05:09 +1100, Russell Shaw wrote: Hi, How can i enforce the relative arrangement of multiple top-level X windows in an ICCCM compliant way? I want this arrangement of three windows on startup: You have to first map the menubar and wait for the WM to set the

Re: Claiming gnome-terminal maintainership

2006-01-04 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: I don't know if Guilherme has significantly contributed to gnome-terminal before. If he has, then go go go. If he hasn't, then someone can work with him for a weeks (where work is more or less verifying he's not removing all the code ;-)).

Re: GConf --makefile-uninstall-rule is incompatible with packaging systems

2006-01-10 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 12:49 +0100, Stanislav Brabec wrote: 4. Enhance GConf: The right fix IMO is that apps should parse the schema files client-side, and don't install them to the gconf source at all. See: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/plans.html This has a bunch of advantages,

Re: GConf --makefile-uninstall-rule is incompatible with packaging systems

2006-01-10 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 17:46 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote: See: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/plans.html This has a bunch of advantages, among them simplifying packaging. Looks good. Does this mean that I should close my bug on the subject?

Re: Credit, Leadership and Vision [Was: Sorry State]

2006-02-08 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 04:01 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Havoc Pennington Jeff, you're right that Steve Jobs style big press release is incompatible with community development (though I don't think it's a moral issue perhaps, I think it's legitimate to make the tradeoff as long

Re: Sorry State [Was: NLD10 and GNOME]

2006-02-08 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 21:54 +0100, Jon K Hellan wrote: However, if we decide to target a niche audience, on a niche operating system, that's niche squared. I doubt if that's sustainable. Didn't say niche, I said specific. The group can still be large. There are many, many well-defined subsets

Re: Only one instance of a capplet should be allowed

2006-02-21 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 21:44 +0100, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote: Hi, Currently it is possible to fire up a capplet multiple times. This can be confusing for users [1]. It would be better if a capplet was launched for the second time that the window of the currently running applet was raised.

Re: Only one instance of a capplet should be allowed

2006-02-21 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 21:10 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: May I ask for the reason? Processes are cheap in Unix, and we have been making all kind of static data shared among processes. By overly making all apps be single-instance, we only make you lose more of your work when a process

Re: Slowdown when running gconftool-2 --makefile-(un)install-rule

2006-03-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, Since hope springs eternal - http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/plans.html Of the three important items doing #2 and #3 would fix this. Havoc ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Re: Applications launched from dbus missing SESSION_MANAGER env. var.

2006-03-12 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, A pretty easy fix might be to have some methods exported by dbus to let apps set env variables for spawned processes. This would even add a new (probably useless) feature the desktop didn't have before (e.g. you could dynamically change LANG and have all newly-launched apps see it or

Re: Nautilus Sidebar

2006-07-01 Thread Havoc Pennington
Ryan Paul wrote: Would making it a universal panel thing be an HIG violation? Having application functionality accessible somewhere other than the application window might be bad usability mojo. The HIG authors would be the first to tell you to worry about good design first and HIG guidelines

focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-16 Thread Havoc Pennington
Iain * wrote: Really? depends on your context... For some people a terminal and text editor are completely worthless, but take away photo management Once again, who are we targetting with the desktop. Apple know who they're targetting, which is probably why text editor and terminal

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Murray Cumming wrote: The word desktop is like a cancer. Its problems include: - it's vague as hell [snip] The desktop includes stuff that everything (apart from very tightly focused embedded stuff) needs. Vendors who don't need some part of the desktop usually don't want any part of it.

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Dave Neary wrote: So, my employer has thoughtfully (and unknowingly) donated an hour of my time to this: http://live.gnome.org/ReleaseSets - it includes the power users set suggested above. My take: this subdivides GNOME's existing audiences (sort of - it's partly an audience split and

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Havoc Pennington There's also Windows apps, embedded (focused?) devices, online services, all kinds of stuff that could serve the goal of bringing an open source computing platform to the general public. If you were at GUADEC you would've heard about some

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Vincent Untz But we'll obviously need to change the way we release GNOME too... Not significantly so... I really warn against this - no throwing babies out with the bathwater! The way GNOME is released is probably pretty good for the linux distribution GUI

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Havoc Pennington Or even why is GNOME sidelining things like: - Maemo - Elisa - One Laptop Per Child - ... You make it sound active - it's not, it's passive. But that's changing. I don't mean to imply active or not, and I'm glad to hear it's changing

Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hubert Figuiere wrote: I thought we were targeting a desktop platform for ISV to integrate it? In that case it make sense to provide modules. BTW what about providing the Office suite first? Because Gnome penetration is first into large business [1] deployment, and and Office suite is

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Murray Cumming wrote: So why does GNOME get so stuck on the desktop (by which we mean the enterprisey/thinclienty/unixy desktop) and act like everything else is some kind of distraction? Really, lots of people are trying lots of other stuff, because people generally share your

Re: On breaking the woohoo barrier...thoughts on how GNOME can get great

2006-07-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: On 7/14/06, *Jeff Waugh* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been banging on this drum in the Ubuntu community for a while, but I guess I haven't been banging it sufficiently loud in GNOME: Whenever we talk about

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-18 Thread Havoc Pennington
Rich Burridge wrote: Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market. What were you smoking when you wrote this? Well, it depends on your success

Re: focus! (was Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al)

2006-07-18 Thread Havoc Pennington
Rich Burridge wrote: I was talking about things like: * look and feel. It's a beautiful desktop. * ease of use. Most things just work. * integration of different desktop components. I'm not talking about market share. This of course is a personal question that everyone has to answer

Re: Mummy, I made a platform in my pants! [Was: focus!]

2006-07-18 Thread Havoc Pennington
Jeff Waugh wrote: A fucking amazing platform isn't an accident, and we need a fucking amazing platform to bring more developers to GNOME - both internal developers and external developers. One of our *crucial* audiences must be FLOSS hackers and ISDs. If we don't satisfy them, we can't

Re: Mummy, I made a platform in my pants! [Was: focus!]

2006-07-18 Thread Havoc Pennington
Jeff Waugh wrote: That said, culturally we've taken a lot of emphasis and glory away from the platform since pre-2.0, so it hasn't had the attention it really needs to improve what we can deliver on top of it. I guess the point of my post is to make sure we don't completely

Re: GnomeClient replacement?

2006-07-19 Thread Havoc Pennington
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

Re: Mummy, I made a platform in my pants! [Was: focus!]

2006-07-19 Thread Havoc Pennington
Federico Mena Quintero wrote: GNOME is a *great* platform to build desktop-ish apps *right now*. Tech-wise strongly agree; ecosystem-wise no, because the number of users is too low for (non-hobbyist/volunteer) developers to care. That's our platform's space. People who get scared that Web

Re: Mac shipments up 12% [Was: focus!]

2006-07-20 Thread Havoc Pennington
Calum Benson wrote: True up to a point, although MacOS in its various (and sometimes more usable than current) guises has been around since before any of those, and although you can't necessarily say it's outlived OS/2, BeOS, Workbench or GEM[1], it's certainly left them eating considerable

Re: Winners of today's build breakages

2006-07-25 Thread Havoc Pennington
Elijah Newren wrote: Just like totem, no recent release has been made so it does not build against recent versions of dbus. The fix is in head, we just need a new release. Well, maybe...hal head has all kinds of other nasty issues (libvolume_id and PolicyKit related in some cases). This is

Re: Cancel session shutdown

2006-08-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Xavier Claessens wrote: Hi, I'm implementing D-Bus support in xchat/xchat-gnome and here is something I want to do: When the X session is closing and xchat has DCC transfers running I want to be notified and in some cases cancel the session shutdown. I'm sure that's some kind of

Re: Cancel session shutdown

2006-08-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Shaun McCance wrote: One really good reason I can think of is that D-Bus can't yet handle remote X applications. It would kind of suck for those not to be able to interact with the session manager. It should be able to handle them fine. The default configuration doesn't listen on tcp but

Re: Cancel session shutdown

2006-08-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Xavier Claessens wrote: On dim, 2006-08-06 at 09:55 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: Xavier Claessens wrote: Hi, I'm implementing D-Bus support in xchat/xchat-gnome and here is something I want to do: When the X session is closing and xchat has DCC transfers running I want to be notified

Re: Global keybindings in GNOME

2006-08-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Nigel Tao wrote: Would it make sense to have a single D-Bus service where tomboy, deskbar, metacity, etc. (and don't forget our KDE friends) can just say notify me on AltF12, or is that just total crack and should we just have a traditionally linked libkeybinder instead? metacity can't do

Re: Global keybindings in GNOME

2006-08-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
receive. The important thing is to keep the defaults sane. Havoc Havoc Pennington wrote: Since bindings are a global resource really there are two options for avoiding conflict: - foist it off on users - when they install an offending app, a dialog comes up like this app wants to bind

Re: Global keybindings in GNOME

2006-08-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Nigel Tao wrote: The problem (which I think Alex Gravely originally raised) is that if you want to run a different WM (e.g. running Tomboy on XFCE), then apps have got to roll their own keybindings, rather than rely on metacity. So, after all this debate out getting Tomboy into GNOME, let's

Re: D-BUS and Xforwarding.

2006-08-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Davyd Madeley wrote: I have pondered the idea of a Dbus-over-X bridge. That is, when attempting to connect to the session bus, it detects that DISPLAY implies you're on a remote machine, and then uses X11 to communicate with the same machine that is running your X server via a bus proxy back

Re: D-BUS and Xforwarding.

2006-08-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Havoc Pennington wrote: The only real question here is how to avoid the Xlib dependency for libdbus, there are various hacks one could employ. btw, my original plan for this involved writing a small xlib replacement that also fixed the mandatory exit on display disconnect problem

Re: RFC GnomeGoal #3

2006-08-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
A good API for saving window state is probably something like: gtk_window_save_state(GtkWindow *window, const char *window_key); which would magically know which things to save (including _NET_WM_STATE), would magically save a different state per screen size, etc. There's no way apps will

Re: RFC GnomeGoal #3

2006-08-12 Thread Havoc Pennington
Marc-André Lureau wrote: I might be the only one, but I would rather let Metacity (or any window manager) do the job of positionning/sizing my windows. As you could read on the msdn blog, saving state of an application is really tricky. The window manager does not have enough

Re: Cancel session shutdown

2006-08-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
Chipzz wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Xavier Claessens wrote: I writing a xchat plugin to provide a dbus service. The goal is to have external applications that can talk to xchat and do everything a xchat An often used argument when comparing windows to linux is that even if a hacker was

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-05 Thread Havoc Pennington
Federico Mena Quintero wrote: There's no reason to have a library separate to GTK+. I agree with that. We do need to consolidate the gnome-ish stuff into GTK+ proper. However, we need to *finally* bite the bullet and do something about the two big problems in the base platform: GConf and

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-05 Thread Havoc Pennington
JP Rosevear wrote: But if you are talking about a *general purpose* desktop integration lib, then that's all stuff that gtk should have. There's no value at all to a separate stack of stuff, and there's tons of negative such as new developer confusion. I think that the developer

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-05 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, Rodrigo Moya wrote: panel applets, interaction with the panel, screensaver, etc, etc, are not things that can go into GTK. If they can, then let's put them in GTK, but so far it seems they can't. You're just taking this for granted. It's not like there's some a priori definition of stuff

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-05 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, To be slightly more constructive, I was thinking on the drive home, why wouldn't there be something like: interface GdkSession { signal online-changed signal screensaver-changed signal idleness-changed signal logging-out /* plus getters for all those states */ } GdkSession*

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Joachim Noreiko wrote: This has never made sense to me - what would be not able to go in gtk or other appropriate lib? There just isn't anything. I'd say the definition of gtk is an API for writing GUI apps. So if something is usually needed to write GUI apps, gtk should have it, or

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Federico Mena Quintero wrote: I think you and Havoc agree on everything, *except* for what stuff can GTK+ depend on?. Part of it is that I think there are degrees of dependency. Here are some cases: - Hard cross-platform API dependency - the dependency is in the GTK headers on all

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
JP Rosevear wrote: The problem is, I've seen no unequivocal declaration about gtk+ and glib accepting these higher level abstractions, so perhaps matthias can comment, because historically this has not been the case and is a primary concern for me at least. My perspective, step 1 is decide

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
JP Rosevear wrote: #ifdef HAVE_GNOME is a choice the app developer has made, if they don't want to rely on a complete desktop then they'll replace this #ifdef with another if all the stuff is in gtk+, #ifdef ENABLE_ONLINE_OFFLINE_SUPPORT, or something similar. The point is that GTK would

Re: The future of session management in GNOME

2006-09-06 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, Here are the relevant specs btw: http://www.xfree86.org/current/ice.pdf http://www.xfree86.org/current/xsmp.pdf http://www.xfree86.org/current/ICElib.pdf http://www.xfree86.org/current/SMlib.pdf (many distributions install these files with X) (There are now a couple other more modern

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Jonathan Blandford wrote: Right now, there are three major uses for GTK+: * the GNOME Desktop toolkit (rich desktop experience) * a cross-platform toolkit (LCD approach) * an embedded platform (pick-and-choose) It's a bit of a false choice; I don't think the LCD approach is required in a

Re: gnome desktop integration library

2006-09-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Bastien Nocera wrote: Well, I'd love to not to see this reimplemented in every application that tries to simply inhibit the screensaver. See: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305688 Why would I need to reimplement this on X/GNOME, MacOS X, and Windows myself, when other

Re: getting on a longer release cycled

2006-09-07 Thread Havoc Pennington
Elijah Newren wrote: [1] I've often worked on big changes that couldn't possibly make it in by the next release, including during code freezes. Sure, I can't commit it to HEAD when I'm doing so, but I can keep working on it even during hard code freeze (in branches, of course), planning it

Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)

2006-09-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, Travis Reitter wrote: 1. Pick a short list of major concepts to put into Topaz. We don't need perfect consensus at this stage, but it'd be nice to start forming some agreement. Concepts (superfeatures across the platform/desktop) would be along the lines of People as a first-class

Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)

2006-09-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
Maxim Udushlivy wrote: I remember somebody compared Gnome with a car. But the desktop is an environment, so it is not a car, it is a parking. The same goes about a hammer: desktop environment is a collection of tools. Different tasks require different collections. The items that you

Re: The future of session management in GNOME

2006-09-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
Bastien Nocera wrote: I know quite a few that do, and I spent a lot of time adding the feature, and fixing it in Totem. I don't think that removing it would be a good idea, unless there is a way to recycle that feature into an application-specific state saving. What would be wrong from a

Re: The future of session management in GNOME

2006-09-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
Dan Winship wrote: But as you also said, XSMP is policy-free I meant more to say policy-free in ironic quotes ;-) * The Save current state checkbox at logout will now say something like Restart the currently-running applications the next time I log in.

Re: GUnique [Was: gnome-utils branched for GNOME 2.16]

2006-09-22 Thread Havoc Pennington
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

Re: Empowering platform developers [Was: GUnique]

2006-09-22 Thread Havoc Pennington
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.

Re: GUnique [Was: gnome-utils branched for GNOME 2.16]

2006-09-24 Thread Havoc Pennington
Elijah Newren wrote: http://live.gnome.org/DesktopAppsAsDBusServices (Crappy write-up, but I just haven't had time to sort it out. Sorry!) GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how is your proposal different than GUnique? (Other than startup-notification not being

Re: Metacity Compositor

2006-10-10 Thread Havoc Pennington
BJörn Lindqvist wrote: On 10/4/06, Rob Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The effort required to add eye candy effects to metacity is much smaller, in my opinion, than the effort required to make compiz a good, usable window manager. Most of the effects code is likely to be reusable in metacity

Re: Metacity Compositor

2006-10-10 Thread Havoc Pennington
Ritesh Khadgaray wrote: Tried metacity compositor. affects look cleaner than compiz except for one small thing : all windows look blue :( I don't think there's any expectation that the current code in CVS is working, though I could be wrong. Havoc

Re: Notes on the Metacity compositor

2006-10-23 Thread Havoc Pennington
Dan Winship wrote: On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 17:54 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: Owen was showing me FC6 this morning, and it does seem to work out nicely having metacity handle the old video hardware and compiz handle the new, with a simple toggle between them. The only real glitch

Re: Notes on the Metacity compositor

2006-10-23 Thread Havoc Pennington
Dan Winship wrote: Compiz could still display the window on both cube faces, but the EWMH doesn't provide any way of explaining that state to anyone else, so other EWMH-based tools like the pager would see the window as being on only one face at a time (and would show it as being truncated at

Re: Notes on the Metacity compositor

2006-10-23 Thread Havoc Pennington
BJörn Lindqvist wrote: That is just one example, but it seems to me that Metacity wasn't designed with flashy graphical effects in mind. One has to wonder: Is the effort required to make Metacity's compositing as good as Compiz greater or smaller than making Compiz as usable and mature as

Re: proposed architecture evolutions for GConf

2006-11-11 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi, It's very simple: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/plans.html We just need a volunteer to do those *three things* and a whole lot of pain would go away. As a preface to responding to your mail, keep in mind that there are two interface points that need not use the same mechanism:

Re: Proposing GtkUnique 1.0 as a blessed external dependency

2006-11-14 Thread Havoc Pennington
Emmanuele Bassi wrote: This can be fixed before 1.0, but given the number and usage of symbols GtkUnique exports, I would expect them to be the same in case of inclusions inside GTK+. When you submit the lib to gtk bugzilla, the gtk maintainers almost certainly will want some API changes.

Re: Proposing GtkUnique 1.0 as a blessed external dependency

2006-11-22 Thread Havoc Pennington
Should also get a gtk bug open for it asap so it can start evolving toward gtk inclusion, no? Maybe there already is one but I didn't see it go by. Havoc ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Re: Proposing GtkUnique 1.0 as a blessed external dependency

2006-11-22 Thread Havoc Pennington
Andre Klapper wrote: hejhej, Am Mittwoch, den 22.11.2006, 15:28 -0500 schrieb Havoc Pennington: Should also get a gtk bug open for it asap so it can start evolving toward gtk inclusion, no? Maybe there already is one but I didn't see it go by. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id

Re: proposed architecture evolutions for GConf

2006-11-24 Thread Havoc Pennington
Stanislav Brabec wrote: It's not problem of Debian, but it should be addressed by future development, too: --makefile-uninstall-rule is incompatible with packaging systems http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=306924 The three fixes I keep mentioning at every opportunity would fix

  1   2   3   >