Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 15:10 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 17:00 +0530, Vishnoo a écrit : > > Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are > > required for Unity.. > > Yes, we need to move away from old unmaintained and deprecated > technology for their modern equivalent (gtk2 to gtk3, gconf to dconf, > dbus-glib to gdbus) and the easier way to do that is to update to > GNOME3. But as you said we need to check that we don't break on the way > what we consider important to our users, that's what I mentioned in the > other emails on that list, we should make a list of things that GNOME3 > is deprecating and that we think should still be available for Ubuntu > users and find a way to bring those back either by working on upstream > to add them back or by finding equivalents or writing new code. > That looks like a call for Rick Spencer's famous Spider Diagram! ;-) -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Default Desktop Experience for 11.04
Alex Launi [2011-04-07 23:46 -0400]: > I can honestly say that when I am not in a unity environment, I don't feel > at home. I couldn't have believed it even two months ago still, but today I feel the same. When I switch back to classic GNOME it feels inferior now; I'm particularly missing the super-fast keyboard shortcuts/search/navigation and bigger screen real estate. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Default Desktop Experience for 11.04
Rick Spencer [2011-04-07 18:38 -0700]: > 1. There are key feature regressions, for example, there is no systray > support for many important applications. For the record, this is currently purely a design decision, not a technical problem. Unity does have a systray, but most applications are not allowed to use it. The current exception list is AFAIR Java applications, Skype, and Mumble. If this is a major issue, then frankly I'd rather just remove the whitelist and allow all old-style systray applications than dropping Unity by default completely. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 17:27 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: > > Please note, I was suggesting not having Firefox or Chromium as the > default, but a webkit based browser with a normal release cycle like > Epiphany (which uses webkitgtk :)). If I'v understood that right, what you are suggesting is we use Epiphany(or similar) as the default and give an option to install FF or Chromium? IMO, not a great choice, that is adding an extra step in the install process. If their rapid release is the problem, we could probably look into just releasing at our own possible pace. We should look at setting what our release schedule could be and if we are short of testers we should try to increase that. Firefox and Chrome(not Chromium) have a lot of popularity, and if we are going to replace with a practically-no-name browser we loose one of our Ubuntu "marketing" points. Being able to tell new users that they have Firefox readily available is a huge plus. If we use Chromium it is a little bit of a hassle. Explaining Chromium is like convincing that a Radoo watch looks as good as the Rado one(yea, a bit unfair comparison). For this reason Firefox still trumps Chromium as a default choice, and FF4 is pretty good. ;-) -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Default Desktop Experience for 11.04
I can honestly say that when I am not in a unity environment, I don't feel at home. I bounce back and forth between ubuntu and osx, and when nvidia was broken, and when I'm in osx, I often find myself trying to 4 finger slide, throwing my mouse to 0,0, tapping super, and generally evoking unity idioms. unity has very quickly made itself a *very* natural part of my workflow and i couldn't imagine working without it any more. It's leagues beyond anything I've ever used, and I am massively impressed with what we've created. -- --Alex Launi -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Default Desktop Experience for 11.04
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Rick Spencer wrote: > 1. There are key feature regressions, for example, there is no systray > support for many important applications. According to the AppIndicator Design document the notification area will be phased out: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CustomStatusMenuDesignGuidelines We've been transitioning since 10.04 now so I don't think this should be attributed to Unity entirely, we could have easily run into this by not shipping the notification area in classic mode. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Default Desktop Experience for 11.04
Hi all, I think I can offer some opinions on this without repeating what others say too much. I want to compare this to the decision a few releases ago to make Empathy the default IM client in Ubuntu. Then why I think Unity should become the default desktop session and not classic GNOME. Pidgin was the running favorite, there were a ton of fans of the client, people were really liking the application and along came the rookie Empathy, which at that point few had heard about, but was a very good candidate based on the amount of time their devs had put into the client and the potential of the software. Once the switch was officially made, the backlash in bug reports and in the social media was harsh, and rude at times. Look where that client has come to this point since we made it default. I sincerely believe (and the devs have expressed the same sentiment) that it wouldn't be as good as it is now if it weren't for that decision and amount of attention. Not to digress any further, I feel that Unity will thrive in the same environment. If we delay it any further then we are keeping some valuable attention from its development. There will be backlashes, in bug reports, in the social media. With the amount of attention and use it will get by being default, it will grow fast. It may appear to be a couple steps back, but I think in the end we will find that Unity as the default desktop environment for 11.04 will be a gigantic leap forward later on. Thanks for all of your time, ~Brian On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Rick Spencer wrote: > Hello all, > > Back at UDS for 11.04 in Orlando, Mark set the goal of using Unity by > default on the Ubutu desktop. Given the current course of development, > it appears that we are going to achieve this goal, and Unity will stay > the default for 11.04. > > I'm following up on this list at the suggestion of the Tech Board to > give folks a chance to respond or escelate any concerns. > > Note that there are some arguments for changing the default from Unity > to "classic' GNOME: > 1. There are key feature regressions, for example, there is no systray > support for many important applications. > 2. There are usability problems, for example, settings are hard to find, > the launcher icons behave differently when you click on the trash can > versus the home folder launcher, it's hard to find a categorized view of > applications, searches do not always turn up expected results. > 3. We are coming in too hot, there are too many crashers on some > hardware and the final product will be buggy. > > I won't rebut these points myself, as I am rather striving to represent > the viewpoints not argue against them. > > Representing the desktop team, Jason Warner believes that Unity will > deliver the superior experience for most users in 11.04. I agree with > this position and support staying the course. > > Cheers, Rick > > PS - You can reference the recent and current bug fixing efforts of the > Unity team here: > https://launchpad.net/unity/+milestone/3.8.4 > https://launchpad.net/unity/+milestone/3.8.6 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity > > > > -- > ubuntu-desktop mailing list > ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop > -- = Ubuntu Member: http://launchpad.net/~bcurtiswx Freenode IRC: BCurtisWX Ubuntu Wiki: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BCurtisWX Ubuntu District of Columbia LoCo: http://dc.ubuntu-us.org/ GNOME3 Team: http://launchpad.net/~gnome3-team Ubuntu Bug Control Team: http://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol = -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Default Desktop Experience for 11.04
Hello all, Back at UDS for 11.04 in Orlando, Mark set the goal of using Unity by default on the Ubutu desktop. Given the current course of development, it appears that we are going to achieve this goal, and Unity will stay the default for 11.04. I'm following up on this list at the suggestion of the Tech Board to give folks a chance to respond or escelate any concerns. Note that there are some arguments for changing the default from Unity to "classic' GNOME: 1. There are key feature regressions, for example, there is no systray support for many important applications. 2. There are usability problems, for example, settings are hard to find, the launcher icons behave differently when you click on the trash can versus the home folder launcher, it's hard to find a categorized view of applications, searches do not always turn up expected results. 3. We are coming in too hot, there are too many crashers on some hardware and the final product will be buggy. I won't rebut these points myself, as I am rather striving to represent the viewpoints not argue against them. Representing the desktop team, Jason Warner believes that Unity will deliver the superior experience for most users in 11.04. I agree with this position and support staying the course. Cheers, Rick PS - You can reference the recent and current bug fixing efforts of the Unity team here: https://launchpad.net/unity/+milestone/3.8.4 https://launchpad.net/unity/+milestone/3.8.6 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Accessibility review of ubiquity.,
So, with the ongoing work to make unity more accessible, and to make the whole accessibility experience better, one area that hasn't been given enough attention is the installer. Given that it uses webkit for the slideshow, and has some nice looking, but not 100% accessible layouts, users often get confused about what the installer is asking them, and in the case of Orca, they need to review the entire window to get an idea of where they are. Added to that, some labels aren't tagged properly in the backend for accessibility purposes. Since ubiquity will likely be moving to pigi/gtk3, this is a good time to go over it, and add more atk code where its needed to make things work better. If we can also do something to make the slideshow available somehow, that would also be useful. Luke -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Reducing number of patches in our packages
>> Also, some Ubuntu-specific patches, like the appindicators ones are >> duplicated in lots of packages, so it would be good if we could find a >> better way to make upstream apps use them, like, for instance, patching >> gtk_status_icon_* in GTK itself to use the indicators when available, >> instead of having to patch dozens of apps (and keep those patches >> up-to-date and working for every major version upgrade). How would this affect application authors, would they need to go update again? >> Another candidate for that could be the launchpad integration patches, >> which are present in many more packages than the appindicators ones. I'm >> sure we can find a way to have that in GTK itself, so that whenever a >> Help menu is created, and given we have the name of the app, it could >> just create the LPI entries. This would be great, do you think GTK upstream would be keen on this? > +100 for this topic. The amount of patches we carry is a huge but > mostly silent overhead. I'd like to make a website like versions [1] > that shows our diff against vanilla GNOME to make this more visible. I would like to also +100 even though I'm not on the desktop team. :p The 3.x transition this is the time to get this out of the way before we find ourselves in LTS-crunch with too large a delta. When we're ready I'd like to see us approach d-d-l as soon as possible and start talking to module maintainers and start working on this. Even if we don't get them all if we could at least do a frontloaded approach for O and catch the remainder in P that would be great. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On 04/07/2011 05:59 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > the following particular challenges: > > * Review our patches, and be rather aggressive about removing those >which are intrusive and which we have carried for ages without >upstream acceptance. Of course there are also still patches which >we haven't even proposed upstream, these should be discussed in >bugzilla.gnome.org. > > * Port pygtk2 apps to PyGI with GTK3. The biggest ones are >ubiquity and software-center, but there is also quite a long tail >of smaller upstream software. > > * Discuss GTK3 theming with UX/design. Our current murrine based >Humanity theme doesn't work with GTK3. > > I expect that this will bind a lot of developer capacity next cycle, > but at the same time it's very important that we do this to not lose > track with GNOME. > > Martin Can we get all our CD applications using GTK3? I'm thinking of Firefox here, we really don't want to have one or two applications requiring both packages on the CD.. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Reducing number of patches in our packages
On 04/07/2011 09:23 PM, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > Priority: medium? > > While working on the GNOME3 PPA during this cycle, I found we have a lot > of patches in many packages, which makes things harder when upgrading to > major versions, and also introduces new ways for the apps to fail, as > the fixes are rebased to apply to the new upstream version. > > While some patches make a lot of sense, others are better kept in the > upstream source, where the upstream developers can guarantee the quality > accross major versions upgrades. > > So, for next cycle, I would suggest a "small" goal of trying to do patch > upstreaming/cleaning days, maybe once a week or every 2 weeks. > > Also, some Ubuntu-specific patches, like the appindicators ones are > duplicated in lots of packages, so it would be good if we could find a > better way to make upstream apps use them, like, for instance, patching > gtk_status_icon_* in GTK itself to use the indicators when available, > instead of having to patch dozens of apps (and keep those patches > up-to-date and working for every major version upgrade). > > Another candidate for that could be the launchpad integration patches, > which are present in many more packages than the appindicators ones. I'm > sure we can find a way to have that in GTK itself, so that whenever a > Help menu is created, and given we have the name of the app, it could > just create the LPI entries. > > +100 for this topic. The amount of patches we carry is a huge but mostly silent overhead. I'd like to make a website like versions [1] that shows our diff against vanilla GNOME to make this more visible. [1] http://people.canonical.com/~platform/desktop/versions.html -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On 04/07/2011 05:59 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > the following particular challenges: > > * Review our patches, and be rather aggressive about removing those >which are intrusive and which we have carried for ages without >upstream acceptance. Of course there are also still patches which >we haven't even proposed upstream, these should be discussed in >bugzilla.gnome.org. > > * Port pygtk2 apps to PyGI with GTK3. The biggest ones are >ubiquity and software-center, but there is also quite a long tail >of smaller upstream software. > > * Discuss GTK3 theming with UX/design. Our current murrine based >Humanity theme doesn't work with GTK3. > > I expect that this will bind a lot of developer capacity next cycle, > but at the same time it's very important that we do this to not lose > track with GNOME. > > Martin One issue we need to tackle is the use of clutter. Applications are moving towards using clutter (e.g. cheese) and my experience with clutter has been: - Requires good 3D support - Has never seemed to work well for me... We need to work out early if we can have a hard dependency on clutter or not, and what happens if you can't run clutter applications. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser
On 04/07/2011 05:21 PM, Luke Yelavich wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:36:01AM EST, Micah Gersten wrote: >> Since now both Firefox and Chromium have committed to rapid release >> schedules, I think it's time to reevaluate the default browser in >> Ubuntu. I am concerned that some of these upgrades might break system >> integration at some point. While the security team does its best to >> prevent regressions, we can't test every case (especially ones we don't >> know about :)). Perhaps, if we can find one with sufficient features, >> switch to a Webkit based browser with a more normal release schedule (6 >> months). We could have an installer like Kubuntu does to install >> Firefox or Chromium on demand. This will also keep the system >> documentation current within the release as the screenshots/menus won't >> be out of date shortly after release. > This raises accessibility concerns, because Chromium is not yet accessible on > Linux, and there is not enough manpower upstream to address that, > particularly since Firefox is working well with regards to accessibility. If > chromium were using libwebkitgtk, then things may be different, since > webkitgtk is getting better and better accessibility wise, but I dare say > that would be a lot of work. > > Luke > Please note, I was suggesting not having Firefox or Chromium as the default, but a webkit based browser with a normal release cycle like Epiphany (which uses webkitgtk :)). Micah -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:36:01AM EST, Micah Gersten wrote: > Since now both Firefox and Chromium have committed to rapid release > schedules, I think it's time to reevaluate the default browser in > Ubuntu. I am concerned that some of these upgrades might break system > integration at some point. While the security team does its best to > prevent regressions, we can't test every case (especially ones we don't > know about :)). Perhaps, if we can find one with sufficient features, > switch to a Webkit based browser with a more normal release schedule (6 > months). We could have an installer like Kubuntu does to install > Firefox or Chromium on demand. This will also keep the system > documentation current within the release as the screenshots/menus won't > be out of date shortly after release. This raises accessibility concerns, because Chromium is not yet accessible on Linux, and there is not enough manpower upstream to address that, particularly since Firefox is working well with regards to accessibility. If chromium were using libwebkitgtk, then things may be different, since webkitgtk is getting better and better accessibility wise, but I dare say that would be a lot of work. Luke -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Firefox translations in Launchpad/Language packs
On 04/07/2011 09:57 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Chris Coulson [2011-04-07 9:25 +0100]: >> - This means that Firefox will output xpi's for every language in the >> future (not just for en-US). We either need to package these in to >> dedicated language packs for Firefox (e.g., firefox-locale-foo) > I. e. build separate binaries from the firefox source? This would > certainly work and make the process a lot easier, too. We can then > integrate it into the existing language-selector framework. > I this is a good idea so that Firefox security upgrades aren't blocked on new language packs. >> - Note that searchplugins are shipped independently of the xpi's. If >> we are going to be shipping Firefox translations with our language >> packs (as we do currently), this would mean Launchpad would need a >> mechanism for importing and exporting the searchplugins alongside the >> xpi's too. > As they are so small, wouldn't it be much easier to just ship them all > in the firefox.deb, as they come from upstream anyway? This is another reason why generating firefox-locale-foo would be good. Otherwise, we'd be adding ~3MB to the main firefox package. Micah -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser
Since now both Firefox and Chromium have committed to rapid release schedules, I think it's time to reevaluate the default browser in Ubuntu. I am concerned that some of these upgrades might break system integration at some point. While the security team does its best to prevent regressions, we can't test every case (especially ones we don't know about :)). Perhaps, if we can find one with sufficient features, switch to a Webkit based browser with a more normal release schedule (6 months). We could have an installer like Kubuntu does to install Firefox or Chromium on demand. This will also keep the system documentation current within the release as the screenshots/menus won't be out of date shortly after release. Thanks, Micah -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Desktop-side networking enhancements
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre [2011-04-07 8:42 -0400]: > - NM integration with proxy configuration +1 on that (I was actually about to bring that up myself, but you beat me to it :) ). GNOME 3 already solves this very nicely. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Firefox translations in Launchpad/Language packs
Chris Coulson [2011-04-07 9:25 +0100]: > - Firstly, I think we should kill po2xpi entirely. It's basically > doing what the Firefox build system is already very good at doing > (building xpi's from source). We should be using the Firefox build > system to build the language pack xpi's that we ship. This resolves > point 2 and 3. I agree, po2xpi is a pain to maintain, too. > - This means that Firefox will output xpi's for every language in the > future (not just for en-US). We either need to package these in to > dedicated language packs for Firefox (e.g., firefox-locale-foo) I. e. build separate binaries from the firefox source? This would certainly work and make the process a lot easier, too. We can then integrate it into the existing language-selector framework. > Launchpad will need to import all xpi's and then make them available > to langpack-o-matic to build the language packs. We already have a mechanism for that fortunately, we call these "static translation tarballs". It's the same as we currently use for translated GNOME help. So if want the XPIs in language-pack-* itself, this would be an efficient way to do this. > - I would still like to be able to use Launchpad to do Firefox > translations. That would be great, but I can't comment on the implementation. > - Note that searchplugins are shipped independently of the xpi's. If > we are going to be shipping Firefox translations with our language > packs (as we do currently), this would mean Launchpad would need a > mechanism for importing and exporting the searchplugins alongside the > xpi's too. As they are so small, wouldn't it be much easier to just ship them all in the firefox.deb, as they come from upstream anyway? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Reducing number of patches in our packages
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:30 -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Rodrigo Moya > wrote: > [...] > > So, for next cycle, I would suggest a "small" goal of trying to do patch > > upstreaming/cleaning days, maybe once a week or every 2 weeks. > > Great idea :) > > > Also, some Ubuntu-specific patches, like the appindicators ones are > > duplicated in lots of packages, so it would be good if we could find a > > better way to make upstream apps use them, like, for instance, patching > > gtk_status_icon_* in GTK itself to use the indicators when available, > > instead of having to patch dozens of apps (and keep those patches > > up-to-date and working for every major version upgrade). > > > > Due to the complexity of keeping an UX that makes sense between using > a standard menu and context menu, against having only one menu to use > in indicators (to just name one constraint), I think it would be > rather difficult to make patching GTK itself to handle indicators work > properly.. and especially in a way that looks good. > I don't understand what you mean here, could you explain please? If GTK's status icon is patched to use the indicators instead of the upstream thing (when the indicator-applet is available), the difference of having one context menu per status icon vs one menu for all indicators is all taken care by the actual implementation (normal status icons would have their own context menu vs indicator-applet would work as it does now) > I certainly believe that indicator patches are upstreamable in many > cases, and already know that Dan in open to including my indicator > patch in nm-applet; I think we're getting close to that being > completed too ;) > well, most appindicators patches were rejected upstream because of that functionality making more sense in GTK itself than in a separate library, so while some of them have been applied (or are going to) upstream (I myself pushed the patch to gnome-control-center), we're still left with many apps that don't get the patch upstream, so more work for us :-) About putting it in GTK, I don't know of all the appindicators patches, but most of the ones I've seen, more or less, are just a bunch of: #ifdef INDICATORS app_indicator_whatever... #else gtk_status_icon_whatever... #endif so I was talking about those. If there are other uses we would need to have, then why not push the stuff we need to GTK's GtkStatusIcon itself upstream? Then, we could just patch GTK to use the indicators when available, but apps would all use the same API (ie no need for us to write specific patches for each app) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 15:03 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 11:22 +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda a écrit : > > Hmm.. I'd like to propose bringing back the idea of the Stracciatella > > session, and making it possible to get both GNOME3 and Gtk+3 > > applications to look and behave as close as possible to what users get > > in other distributions. > > Hi, > > The idea was never really dropped but it's not likely it will be an > official focus for the team, contributions to help getting it working > better are welcome though Hey, I know it hasn't been dropped, but there is still quite a lot of work left to be done, so I'd like to have a list of things that have to be done to make GNOME Shell a "first class citizen" in Oneiric created during UDS-O. I know it has been discussed during last UDS with GNOME developers to some extent, so it's possible that the list is at least partially done already. Some of the changes required are trivial, like explicitly setting LIBOVERLAY_SCROLLBAR=0 to disable new scrollbars, but some other, like restoring the default GtkStatusIcon behaviour for all applications. will take quite a lot of time and effort, and will require some help from both Desktop and Ayatana teams to make it happen. I'm planning on working on those issues in Oneiric almost exclusively, but I can't tell how much time am I going to have right now. Cheers, KK signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > * Discuss GTK3 theming with UX/design. Our current murrine based >Humanity theme doesn't work with GTK3. s/Humanity theme/Ambiance theme or Radiance theme. :-) Humanity is an icon theme.. Or maybe you were thinking about the older Human gtk theme. :-) -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 17:00 +0530, Vishnoo a écrit : > Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are > required for Unity.. Yes, we need to move away from old unmaintained and deprecated technology for their modern equivalent (gtk2 to gtk3, gconf to dconf, dbus-glib to gdbus) and the easier way to do that is to update to GNOME3. But as you said we need to check that we don't break on the way what we consider important to our users, that's what I mentioned in the other emails on that list, we should make a list of things that GNOME3 is deprecating and that we think should still be available for Ubuntu users and find a way to bring those back either by working on upstream to add them back or by finding equivalents or writing new code. -- Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 13:32 +0200, Rodrigo Moya a écrit : > there was a gtk3-engines-murrine package in the GNOME3 PPA some weeks > ago, IIRC, so maybe that's a good starting point to port our themes? Hi, That package was from when gtk3 was still use the old theming way, Cimi started a new css one for GTK3 on https://edge.launchpad.net/unico but had to stop to work on the new scrollbars, that should be resumed next cycle though, if someone wants to give a go to the current version and get it in the gnome3-team ppa maybe that would be a nice start Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 11:22 +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda a écrit : > Hmm.. I'd like to propose bringing back the idea of the Stracciatella > session, and making it possible to get both GNOME3 and Gtk+3 > applications to look and behave as close as possible to what users get > in other distributions. Hi, The idea was never really dropped but it's not likely it will be an official focus for the team, contributions to help getting it working better are welcome though Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Desktop-side networking enhancements
Hi all, As you may be aware, the next release will most likely bring in the new version of NetworkManager (0.9 now) with all kinds of fun stuff, like WiMAX and me porting the indicator patch to any changes that may have been made to nm-applet for 0.9, unless it makes it upstream before then ;) However, I think it also means it's the right time to look into further things that you may wish to see in the desktop environment to go with NetworkManager. Here I'm thinking about some of the things that came up before in bugs, brainstorm ideas, and the like: - NM integration with firewall configuration - NM integration with proxy configuration - Changing defaults for connection names/notifications/identification of devices - See http://blog.cyphermox.net/2011/03/idea-27250-auto-eth0-isnt-very-user.html I'd also like to turn on IPv6 in NM by default; with the obvious limitation that it won't block interfaces from coming up if there is no IPv6 available. I've limited myself to the *desktop* aspect of things here, but I'm obviously open to idea that won't just affect the Desktop flavour as well. So, any ideas and wild dreams? Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu...@gmail.com 4096R/EE018C93 1967 8F7D 03A1 8F38 732E FF82 C126 33E1 EE01 8C93 -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Reducing number of patches in our packages
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Rodrigo Moya wrote: [...] > So, for next cycle, I would suggest a "small" goal of trying to do patch > upstreaming/cleaning days, maybe once a week or every 2 weeks. Great idea :) > Also, some Ubuntu-specific patches, like the appindicators ones are > duplicated in lots of packages, so it would be good if we could find a > better way to make upstream apps use them, like, for instance, patching > gtk_status_icon_* in GTK itself to use the indicators when available, > instead of having to patch dozens of apps (and keep those patches > up-to-date and working for every major version upgrade). > Due to the complexity of keeping an UX that makes sense between using a standard menu and context menu, against having only one menu to use in indicators (to just name one constraint), I think it would be rather difficult to make patching GTK itself to handle indicators work properly.. and especially in a way that looks good. I certainly believe that indicator patches are upstreamable in many cases, and already know that Dan in open to including my indicator patch in nm-applet; I think we're getting close to that being completed too ;) Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu...@gmail.com 4096R/EE018C93 1967 8F7D 03A1 8F38 732E FF82 C126 33E1 EE01 8C93 -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 13:46 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > > they are not removed, they are moved to another place, which is > gnome-tweak-tool, available in the GNOME3 PPA > Oh! Yea, I've heard of that tweak tool but never tried it. Maybe we should consider including the tweak-tool by default on the iso itself. (I cant seem to find them in the iso from gnome.org) > > > I know you won't believe what I say, coming from a devote GNOME > developer/user, but GNOME 3.0 is the best GNOME release ever :-) Nah! I believe you :-) (however,every parent believes their baby is the most beautiful one ;p ) Kidding aside, if GNOME3 is good, it's great for all of us :-) -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On 07/04/11 05:22, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote: Hmm.. I'd like to propose bringing back the idea of the Stracciatella session, and making it possible to get both GNOME3 and Gtk+3 applications to look and behave as close as possible to what users get in other distributions. [1] I know it's not a new idea, but I think we should revise it for GNOME3 if we manage to replace classic GNOME with Unity 2D in Oneiric. Moving to GNOME3 and reviewing the patches might be a good opportunity to try to make our customization patches dependent on a GNOME_ME_HARDER environment variable. This has been discussed a few times at UDS and is a request by GNOME developers to help make it easier to get a pure GNOME experience. -mt -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 17:00 +0530, Vishnoo wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:32 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit : > > > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > > > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > > > the following particular challenges: > > > > Hello, > > > > (You stole my topic! ;-) > > > > Joke aside we should do the GNOME3 and GTK3 transition next cycle to be > > ready for the lts and it's likely to be quite some work. > > Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are > required for Unity.. > > Several caplets have been removed, not just hiding options. (I'm sure > you guys remember the GDM theming removal "issue" :p ) > In GNOME3 even fonts cannot be changed easily. > they are not removed, they are moved to another place, which is gnome-tweak-tool, available in the GNOME3 PPA > If we removing easy ways > to change a details, Launchpad would be a *very* noisy for us. > I dont think we might even get it in time for our LTS schedule.. > (couldnt find any info regarding that.) > > If we compare the previous 10.04 LTS and what could be 12.04 LTS with > GNOME3(3.0?/3.2?), there could be a lot of feature parity. > Maybe it is better we wait for Gnome3 to mature a bit more before we > jump into it.. > I know you won't believe what I say, coming from a devote GNOME developer/user, but GNOME 3.0 is the best GNOME release ever :-) It's not like 2.0, which was released too early, when lots of apps hadn't been ported. Of course, there are issues, but nothing big as far as I can see from my daily usage of it in the last months. And the plans for 3.2 (which are starting to be discussed, in desktop-devel-list, just in case someone wants to influence) are looking really good (things like integration of online services, for instance) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > the following particular challenges: > > * Review our patches, and be rather aggressive about removing those >which are intrusive and which we have carried for ages without >upstream acceptance. Of course there are also still patches which >we haven't even proposed upstream, these should be discussed in >bugzilla.gnome.org. > right. Sorry I sent my topic proposal mail before reading this, so please read my proposal. With the changes in GNOME3, we have patches that apply cleanly but don't work, so yes, we should really do a lot of upstreaming / cleaning > * Port pygtk2 apps to PyGI with GTK3. The biggest ones are >ubiquity and software-center, but there is also quite a long tail >of smaller upstream software. > > * Discuss GTK3 theming with UX/design. Our current murrine based >Humanity theme doesn't work with GTK3. > there was a gtk3-engines-murrine package in the GNOME3 PPA some weeks ago, IIRC, so maybe that's a good starting point to port our themes? > I expect that this will bind a lot of developer capacity next cycle, > but at the same time it's very important that we do this to not lose > track with GNOME. > yeah! -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:32 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit : > > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > > the following particular challenges: > > Hello, > > (You stole my topic! ;-) > > Joke aside we should do the GNOME3 and GTK3 transition next cycle to be > ready for the lts and it's likely to be quite some work. Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are required for Unity.. Several caplets have been removed, not just hiding options. (I'm sure you guys remember the GDM theming removal "issue" :p ) In GNOME3 even fonts cannot be changed easily. If we removing easy ways to change a details, Launchpad would be a *very* noisy for us. I dont think we might even get it in time for our LTS schedule.. (couldnt find any info regarding that.) If we compare the previous 10.04 LTS and what could be 12.04 LTS with GNOME3(3.0?/3.2?), there could be a lot of feature parity. Maybe it is better we wait for Gnome3 to mature a bit more before we jump into it.. -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Reducing number of patches in our packages
Priority: medium? While working on the GNOME3 PPA during this cycle, I found we have a lot of patches in many packages, which makes things harder when upgrading to major versions, and also introduces new ways for the apps to fail, as the fixes are rebased to apply to the new upstream version. While some patches make a lot of sense, others are better kept in the upstream source, where the upstream developers can guarantee the quality accross major versions upgrades. So, for next cycle, I would suggest a "small" goal of trying to do patch upstreaming/cleaning days, maybe once a week or every 2 weeks. Also, some Ubuntu-specific patches, like the appindicators ones are duplicated in lots of packages, so it would be good if we could find a better way to make upstream apps use them, like, for instance, patching gtk_status_icon_* in GTK itself to use the indicators when available, instead of having to patch dozens of apps (and keep those patches up-to-date and working for every major version upgrade). Another candidate for that could be the launchpad integration patches, which are present in many more packages than the appindicators ones. I'm sure we can find a way to have that in GTK itself, so that whenever a Help menu is created, and given we have the name of the app, it could just create the LPI entries. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, Hey > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > the following particular challenges: > > * Review our patches, and be rather aggressive about removing those >which are intrusive and which we have carried for ages without >upstream acceptance. Of course there are also still patches which >we haven't even proposed upstream, these should be discussed in >bugzilla.gnome.org. Hmm.. I'd like to propose bringing back the idea of the Stracciatella session, and making it possible to get both GNOME3 and Gtk+3 applications to look and behave as close as possible to what users get in other distributions. [1] I know it's not a new idea, but I think we should revise it for GNOME3 if we manage to replace classic GNOME with Unity 2D in Oneiric. [1] Right now I'm thinking mostly of replacing the libappindicator GtkStatusIcon fallback menu with the original menu used by the application. With Ubuntu moving to Unity only two sessions - unity and unity-2d - are going to support solely indicators in the default configuration. But it would also mean disabling overlay scrollbars for non-Unity sessions. Cheers, KK signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:25, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 10:06 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit : > > I hear that next cycle we will probably be required to ship unity-2d, > > and with it Qt. This means we'll need yet another round of "where to > > get the space from?". > > Hi, > > We should probably discuss dropping "classic GNOME" (i.e the GNOME2 > session) from the CD then if we do that. > > Cheers, > Sebastien Bacher > Sounds like a plausible path.. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > In the last years we fell victim to an ever-growing set of language > runtimes and toolkits, but I realize that getting rid of each of them > is hard. So if we want to keep adding new features without removing > others, we might also eventually reconsider moving to 1 GB USB images > and entirely stop shipping CD images (on mirrors/shop/Loco > distribution, etc.) This would be something I would hate to do, but it > seems reality is against our original design goals :-) This is something that we should realy be careful. I am speaking here with my a LoCo member hat on. It will give a real stop to many of our promotion activites if we cannot give CD to anyone who is interested. And proving usb media won't be possible due to the price gap. We might still have the dvd option (a dvd with 1Go iso) but it is clearly something to consider before making such move. But I completly trust you judgement Martin on that point. Christophe -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: > I expect that in practice pretty much everyone uses usb-creator and > USB sticks with the current ISOs anyway. The 700 MB limit still serves > as a good boundary because with every 100 MB it grows we'll lose some > people who are able to download the beast, and it'll also greatly > reduce the pressure for us to not grow fat so quickly. One thing that does worry me is that if we increase the image size to 1G, we'll immediately come up with a long list of things to fill it with. And then we'll be in the same position again. Maybe it would be better if we expanded the image size slowly - 800M for O, 900M for P, or something similar - to make sure that we continue to think long-term when we add to the image. - Evan -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Appindicators for xfce4-panel, lxpanel and others?
I've grown very fond of the appindicators and the fact that they work equally well in both gnome-panel and Unity, is something I really appreciate. Now, it seems the Gnome platform is moving away from the traditional way of working with Gnome 2, and that's fine, innovation is good. But I think a lot of people will want to keep working in a similar way to the way they have, and so I think particularly Xfces user base will grow rapidly in the times ahead. Being able to switch and choose different shells at login is a very good thing. But consistency is too, and I think appindicators are an important part of that. It would be good for both developers and users if they were working equally well on Unity, Gnome-panel, Xfce4-panel and Lxpanel. Do you think this is an achievable goal for Oneiric? Kindest regards, Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
Evan Broder [2011-04-07 1:11 -0700]: > Booting Ubuntu off of an actual CD is impressively slow these days; > using a USB drive instead would give first-time users a better > experience. I expect that in practice pretty much everyone uses usb-creator and USB sticks with the current ISOs anyway. The 700 MB limit still serves as a good boundary because with every 100 MB it grows we'll lose some people who are able to download the beast, and it'll also greatly reduce the pressure for us to not grow fat so quickly. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:06:54AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > So if we want to keep adding new features without removing > others, we might also eventually reconsider moving to 1 GB USB images > and entirely stop shipping CD images (on mirrors/shop/Loco > distribution, etc.) This would be something I would hate to do, but it > seems reality is against our original design goals :-) Given the recent scaling back of shipit, it seems worth giving that some serious consideration. Bryce -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit : > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see > the following particular challenges: Hello, (You stole my topic! ;-) Joke aside we should do the GNOME3 and GTK3 transition next cycle to be ready for the lts and it's likely to be quite some work. I agree on dropping the old patches we have when not required but we also need to think about what some of those mean for your user experience, we have quite some which have been added in reply to real needs we found that upstream didn't always address so we should at least have a least of things that will not apply and discuss whether it's find to drop them or we need to rewrite those. Random examples of things in this case: the keyboard layout indicator (or the other indicators which are patches over GNOME2 notification area icons), setting a default system layout from the keyboard capplet, etc Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Firefox translations in Launchpad/Language packs
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:07 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Priority: low > > Discuss integration of Firefox translations into Launchpad and > language-packs. This decayed quite a bit since Firefox 4.0 in Natty, > and right now we are back to just using the upstream tarballs. > > Martin Hi, Thanks for bringing this one up. There doesn't seem to be any reason for me not to forward to this list the e-mail I've already sent to people internally about this, so I'll quote it all here: > Hi, > > So, for the last few days I have been thinking about the current state > of Firefox translations in Ubuntu, and thinking how we can improve it > in future releases (remembering that we are probably going to get 3-4 > major Firefox versions per year too). > > From my observations in Natty, here is a summary of where I think the > current issues are: > > 1) xpi updates are very much a manual process, and are decoupled from > Firefox version bumps (meaning that it is extra effort to update > xpi's). We need to be able to do this really really quickly in the > future. > > 2) po2xpi seems to be completely broken with the change to the chrome > format in Firefox 4. > > 3) po2xpi has produced broken xpi's in the past (e.g. bug 629640 is > because of a broken chrome.manifest). > > 4) For search plugins - Upstream Mozilla builds are shipping fully > translated search plugins for a lot of search engines. They are also > shipping per-locale search plugins which have a better relevance for > each group of users. The only localization we are doing for search > plugins is changing the search URL for Yahoo in some locales. The only > locale-specific plugin we are shipping is Baidu for zh-CN users. > > 5) Search plugin distribution seems completely broken to me. We're > having to maintain a copy of all of the en-US search plugins in > langpack-o-matic, for any locale where we make a locale-specific > change in just one plugin. The search plugins really don't belong in > langpack-o-matic. > > 6) The PO format that Launchpad exports to be parsed by po2xpi isn't > in a format which we can use to collaborate with upstream translators, > and it's not easily convertible in to the right format either (i.e. > properties and dtd files using the layout of the l10n-central > Mercurial repo's). > > I would like to resolve all of these issues, so I've been doing a bit > of pre-UDS thinking. > > - Firstly, I think we should kill po2xpi entirely. It's basically > doing what the Firefox build system is already very good at doing > (building xpi's from source). We should be using the Firefox build > system to build the language pack xpi's that we ship. This resolves > point 2 and 3. > > - This means that we will build the xpi's when we build Firefox, and > implies that we need to ship all locales with the Firefox source > package. I've had a look at the layout of the l10n-central repository, > and I think I've figured out how to merge all of the translations in > to a single Firefox source tree (although I haven't tried it yet). > This should fix point 1 (although it will make our source tarball > bigger) > > - This means that Firefox will output xpi's for every language in the > future (not just for en-US). We either need to package these in to > dedicated language packs for Firefox (e.g., firefox-locale-foo), or > Launchpad will need to import all xpi's and then make them available > to langpack-o-matic to build the language packs. In any case, the > xpi's built by Firefox will be in the final form that we intend to > distribute to users, and won't be modified by Launchpad or > langpack-o-matic. > > - I would still like to be able to use Launchpad to do Firefox > translations. However, with Firefox building its own xpi's we would > need to adopt a process similar to Chromium. I will write tools to > convert from source <-> po, which could be integrated in to Launchpad > eventually. This will enable us to import translations directly from > the Firefox source. It will also enable us to export translations from > Launchpad and easily convert them in to a format that could be merged > in to the upstream Mercurial repo. I will ask upstream if they think > this would benefit them (I don't see a reason why they wouldn't want > additional help doing translations). This fixes point 6. > > - If I merge the l10n-central branches in to our Firefox source, this > means that we will automatically get the upstream translated search > plugins (fixing point 4). I just need to be careful how we handle > plugins that we modify to change affiliate codes. This would mean that > we could drop the search plugins from langpack-o-matic (fixing point > 5). > > - Note that searchplugins are shipped independently of the xpi's. If > we are going to be shipping Firefox translations with our language > packs (as we do currently), this would mean Launchpad would need a > mechanism for importing and exporting the searchplugins alongside the > xpi's too. > > Anyway,
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 10:06 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit : > I hear that next cycle we will probably be required to ship unity-2d, > and with it Qt. This means we'll need yet another round of "where to > get the space from?". Hi, We should probably discuss dropping "classic GNOME" (i.e the GNOME2 session) from the CD then if we do that. Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: > In the last years we fell victim to an ever-growing set of language > runtimes and toolkits, but I realize that getting rid of each of them > is hard. So if we want to keep adding new features without removing > others, we might also eventually reconsider moving to 1 GB USB images > and entirely stop shipping CD images (on mirrors/shop/Loco > distribution, etc.) This would be something I would hate to do, but it > seems reality is against our original design goals :-) While I like that the 700M CD image gives us a physical (as opposed to more or less arbitrary) limitation on the size of our images, another benefit of not shipping CD images would be performance. Booting Ubuntu off of an actual CD is impressively slow these days; using a USB drive instead would give first-time users a better experience. - Evan -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Clean up language support
Priority: low Rediscuss the structure of language-support-* metapackages vs. language-selector's dynamic detection of missing packages; right now this is a wild mix, and I'd like to consistently use language-selector for everything. This is only little actual work, but needs a bit of thought first. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Firefox translations in Launchpad/Language packs
Priority: low Discuss integration of Firefox translations into Launchpad and language-packs. This decayed quite a bit since Firefox 4.0 in Natty, and right now we are back to just using the upstream tarballs. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] Integrate unity-2d/Qt / install media space
Hello all, I hear that next cycle we will probably be required to ship unity-2d, and with it Qt. This means we'll need yet another round of "where to get the space from?". Next cycle we'll drop Python 2.6, but at the same time add Python 3, so the python-* library packages won't shrink. In the contrary, we'll have to ship python3 itself in addition. I don't think we'll manage to port everything to Python 3 next cycle, so we'll have to keep both. The only thing I still know of which people won't immediately miss is Perl, but removing it will mean to remove AppArmor and shiny debconf dialogs in software-center/synaptics. Aside from that we pretty much exhausted package content optimization. In the last years we fell victim to an ever-growing set of language runtimes and toolkits, but I realize that getting rid of each of them is hard. So if we want to keep adding new features without removing others, we might also eventually reconsider moving to 1 GB USB images and entirely stop shipping CD images (on mirrors/shop/Loco distribution, etc.) This would be something I would hate to do, but it seems reality is against our original design goals :-) Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
Hello all, kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see the following particular challenges: * Review our patches, and be rather aggressive about removing those which are intrusive and which we have carried for ages without upstream acceptance. Of course there are also still patches which we haven't even proposed upstream, these should be discussed in bugzilla.gnome.org. * Port pygtk2 apps to PyGI with GTK3. The biggest ones are ubiquity and software-center, but there is also quite a long tail of smaller upstream software. * Discuss GTK3 theming with UX/design. Our current murrine based Humanity theme doesn't work with GTK3. I expect that this will bind a lot of developer capacity next cycle, but at the same time it's very important that we do this to not lose track with GNOME. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
