Re: gnome depending on apache [WAS: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution]
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: Is this an purely optional program, or does gnome itself depend on it ? Please review the dependencies of the gnome metapackage. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Ftkf0F6snR52XOyk_xhp9+CfX8gyHrsg2mYryf4=f...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 GNOME can run on BSD. This page documents the procedure done by one user. https://wiki.gnome.org/TingweiLan/FreeBSD On 10/24/2013 01:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: [Another new topic, sorry -develites] On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility? That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8. An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode disappears. What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this sytemd stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of systemd like Ubuntu? I know GNOME is fairly sane, I can't imagine they'd break *BSD like that. Cheers, T -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSaVSCAAoJECqPt0hwyHtvAxsQAK2AS1FCyHAARaavY0M6uWXO u2vwLQaYsIoN2idyWlufE52wQyuyrSoXQJylkambhgqUsqJVnp07SZzAnp+Q2tH0 yVE4G3nxPdonrn+WE38xSg0W/2vHA84h3uF8R5Ow0KJ/f9HGr6v7pQeIWjmuD5FY g8bMJ9JTcGUIcXf8/CyEY6zcS+fxU/1ZN8PKK/K0p+c8V/CU3uJL5fQl2Ko1mnE5 W5mCXnNXPNPQ3/rI78XKCUF4OokQdZioOp8dcJiC9A3ZCN7LdXAbDGajisIhDx1y L/yQ2mTXaidFbaTf5vifA3WL1u/qygBKYfbcAmUL+pu6D3Piq9j3WfKdYbEq+gLi y1hwYT9HOzJLNBrD4crge0lA8S+gL4h8ceE2lMzqBdn5Rwm7I+A6vYtRxkpbAPXa TEQOoBBUN0+S/Vc1vY84RvHsvaTBFh/wrW23YCIGIzGOAS5Lpn/XtCPY47fY4ibZ LMJYagybkW+w42ijzJ9iHPErt1tfpgMO2IfZNw+99OZEmETJ/uDlEY2pX2Lu907X EmD8ZZarMvMNMnSh7oiOfE7CTsGfp7EYu86KM67FnqXa8paDmyIn3CZFjUVfVNsu GLbJZajWgnD98eHw/Dm+3VNCwJ1VJHKRktZ1Qlezkgl46AOebBJHvxqu7klR4JL6 d8d9GpM0oFtL001RJjIC =mi06 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695482.4020...@riseup.net
Re: GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]
Hi, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: [Another new topic, sorry -develites] On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: What's the the status of XFCE regarding accessibility? That was a big strengh of GNOME for a long time, though I've heard rumors (sorry not to be more specific) that gnome-shell has some unsolved issues in that regard, which is a problem since GNOME classic/fallback mode is gone in 3.8. An even stronger reason to move away from Gnome if the classic mode disappears. What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this sytemd stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of systemd like Ubuntu? I can't answer for the systemd part but GNOME on BSDs mostly depends on developers doing the sometimes necessary porting work. For example Antoine Jacoutot (CC'ed so he can answer the systemd part) has been working making sure it runs fine on OpenBSD. For the GNOME 3.10 release he produced a video demonstrating it running on OpenBSD: https://www.bsdfrog.org/tmp/gnome310.webm Fred -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024172518.ga23...@0d.be
Re: GNOME upstream portability [was: Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce]
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 07:25:18PM +0200, Frederic Peters wrote: What's the status of GNOME on BSDs? How do they get around this sytemd stuff, if it's not ported? Do they just use chunks of systemd like Ubuntu? I can't answer for the systemd part but GNOME on BSDs mostly depends on developers doing the sometimes necessary porting work. For example Antoine Jacoutot (CC'ed so he can answer the systemd part) has been working making sure it runs fine on OpenBSD. For the GNOME 3.10 release he produced a video demonstrating it running on OpenBSD: https://www.bsdfrog.org/tmp/gnome310.webm Hi. On OpenBSD we just dropped the features that need systemd for now. There was some talk about porting some systemd interfaces but the path GNOME is currently taking made us stop for now since it seems clearer each day that systemd will be a hard requirement at some point (not just 'some' interfaces). Even if they do not call it a hard requirement, you will loose 1/2 of what makes GNOME interesting which would render it useless to us. So for now it works ok enough I would say, but in the middle term, I don't see any future for !linux+systemd in GNOME. While some people are really opened about keeping fallback code for ConsoleKit or portability patches, some don't care at all or are even getting in our way on purpose. That is my own feeling so far, but it would be interesting to know what other folks think (FreeBSD, Gentoo...). -- Antoine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025004612.gf4...@janus.obspm.bsdfrog.org
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 2012-09-12, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Wookey wrote: I'd be happy if xfce was the default. I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a default desktop and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live images. yes please. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnk50h4d.aom.nos...@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
Re: Gnome classic mode
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 08:15 +, Sune Vuorela a écrit : On 2012-09-12, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a default desktop and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live images. yes please. Seconded. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347442122.25952.446.camel@pi0307572
Re: Gnome classic mode
Paul Wise p...@debian.org (12/09/2012): I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a default desktop and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live images. [patch needed] Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:02:28AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Wookey wrote: I'd be happy if xfce was the default. I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a default desktop and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live images. Isn't the whole concept of default desktop just a matter of which desktop is included on CD1? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a series of CD1s (Debian Ghome Edition, Debian KDE Edition, Debian XFCE Edition etc) or that Debian does away with offline installs entirely (An internet connection is required to install Debian)? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 11:03 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit : Isn't the whole concept of default desktop just a matter of which desktop is included on CD1? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a series of CD1s (Debian Ghome Edition, Debian KDE Edition, Debian XFCE Edition etc) or that Debian does away with offline installs entirely (An internet connection is required to install Debian)? What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or should use) the netinst. So the real question is being able to choose the desktop from the installer instead of having to pre-seed this choice. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347445010.25952.451.camel@pi0307572
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Mi, 12 sep 12, 12:16:50, Josselin Mouette wrote: So the real question is being able to choose the desktop from the installer instead of having to pre-seed this choice. Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a Desktop Environment is, what should happen if the user makes no choice at all? Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 12/09/12 12:16, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 11:03 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit : Isn't the whole concept of default desktop just a matter of which desktop is included on CD1? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a series of CD1s (Debian Ghome Edition, Debian KDE Edition, Debian XFCE Edition etc) or that Debian does away with offline installs entirely (An internet connection is required to install Debian)? What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or should use) the netinst. What does it happen when no internet connection is available (no access to internet, no supported driver for the net card) ? This case is certainly as anecdotic as CD1, but somehow in this situation CD1 can be very useful to step forward. So a CD1 with a light windows manager would be a good idea; the other windows managers could be placed on the other CDs. So the real question is being able to choose the desktop from the installer instead of having to pre-seed this choice. My 2 cents, Jerome -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505066b0.6020...@rezozer.net
Re: Gnome classic mode
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 13:39 +0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a Desktop Environment is, what should happen if the user makes no choice at all? What we have now: a sensible default. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347449678.25952.460.camel@pi0307572
Re: Gnome classic mode
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 12:40 +0200, Jerome BENOIT a écrit : What does it happen when no internet connection is available (no access to internet, no supported driver for the net card) ? This case is certainly as anecdotic as CD1, but somehow in this situation CD1 can be very useful to step forward. So a CD1 with a light windows manager would be a good idea; http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/ → debian-6.0.5-amd64-kde-CD-1.iso → debian-6.0.5-amd64-xfce+lxde-CD-1.iso I’d appreciate if debian-devel could be a place where we talk about Debian development, not a place to answer newbie FAQs. the other windows managers could be placed on the other CDs. I’d also appreciate if people could stop spreading dumb shit like “KDE is just a window manager”. We could easily ship our 70+ window managers on a single CD. Yet we now have trouble doing so with a single desktop environment. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347449936.25952.469.camel@pi0307572
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:34:38PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 13:39 +0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a Desktop Environment is, what should happen if the user makes no choice at all? What we have now: a sensible default. OK. I'm confused now. You want a default desktop without having a default desktop? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Mi, 12 sep 12, 13:34:38, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 13:39 +0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a Desktop Environment is, what should happen if the user makes no choice at all? What we have now: a sensible default. IMVHO it would probably be better to redesign the task selection screen into a single choice menu similar to this: , | Gnome Desktop Environment (graphical) | KDE Desktop Environment (graphical) | LXDE Desktop Environment (graphical) | Xfce Desktop Environment (graphical) | Standard Unix environment (text only) | Basic install (text only) ` Moving the cursor over the selections would give brief explanations about each option and should probably mention what hardware recommendations each option has (3D, RAM, etc.). Even better if this is done before the partitioning stage so that guided partitioning recipes can be checked/adjusted according to the size requirements. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 12/09/12 13:38, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 12:40 +0200, Jerome BENOIT a écrit : What does it happen when no internet connection is available (no access to internet, no supported driver for the net card) ? This case is certainly as anecdotic as CD1, but somehow in this situation CD1 can be very useful to step forward. So a CD1 with a light windows manager would be a good idea; http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/ → debian-6.0.5-amd64-kde-CD-1.iso → debian-6.0.5-amd64-xfce+lxde-CD-1.iso I’d appreciate if debian-devel could be a place where we talk about Debian development, not a place to answer newbie FAQs. Claiming that ``What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or should use) the netinst'' really sounds as claim of a newbie who has never installed Debian on a computer. So do not be surprised to get newbie like responses. Otherwise, I can manage anecdotic situations without reading newbie FAQ: thanks ! the other windows managers could be placed on the other CDs. I’d also appreciate if people could stop spreading dumb shit like “KDE is just a window manager”. Did I say that ? We could easily ship our 70+ window managers on a single CD. Yet we now have trouble doing so with a single desktop environment. I wanted to stress that netinst may not be the only way: the ``most people'' argument is a little short, not to say a newbie argument. Jerome -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505093e7.40...@rezozer.net
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 12/09/2012 15:53, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Claiming that ``What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or should use) the netinst'' really sounds as claim of a newbie who has never installed Debian on a computer. So do not be surprised to get newbie like responses. Otherwise, I can manage anecdotic situations without reading newbie FAQ: thanks ! I am pretty sure the claim is that people installing Debian either use netinst or use a larger support (such as USB key or DVD). Debian requires so many CD that I do not see the practical use of the CD image except in very specific contexts. I do not say it has no uses; I think Josselin is right when saying that it's anecdotic. More computers everyday do not have a CD-reader. In wheezy+2, CD will probably have become really obsolete. This surely could be backed by numbers of downloads, that I do not have. Oh, and this has been discussed this summer already. Sincerly, -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
Hi: On 12/09/12 16:36, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: On 12/09/2012 15:53, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Claiming that ``What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or should use) the netinst'' really sounds as claim of a newbie who has never installed Debian on a computer. So do not be surprised to get newbie like responses. Otherwise, I can manage anecdotic situations without reading newbie FAQ: thanks ! I am pretty sure the claim is that people installing Debian either use netinst or use a larger support (such as USB key or DVD). This claim sounds more reasonable. Debian requires so many CD that I do not see the practical use of the CD image except in very specific contexts. I do not say it has no uses; I think Josselin is right when saying that it's anecdotic. More computers everyday do not have a CD-reader. In wheezy+2, CD will probably have become really obsolete. we are at Wheezy minus six months (or so): let give to time some time. This surely could be backed by numbers of downloads, that I do not have. Indeed the ratio CD1/(DVD+USB+ ... (minus)(netinst)) should be low. Oh, and this has been discussed this summer already. and netinst is not the only way. Sincerly, Best wishes, Jerome -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5050ae9c.2070...@rezozer.net
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 11:03 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit : Isn't the whole concept of default desktop just a matter of which desktop is included on CD1? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a series of CD1s (Debian Ghome Edition, Debian KDE Edition, Debian XFCE Edition etc) or that Debian does away with offline installs entirely (An internet connection is required to install Debian)? Debian already produces multiple CD1's with almost those exact labels. What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or should use) the netinst. So the real question is being able to choose the desktop from the installer instead of having to pre-seed this choice. The installer already enables the user to make this choice. I suppose it's under a kind of obscure boot option, which would explain why so many usually well-informed people apparently don't know about it. Take a look under Advanced options - Alternative desktop environments next time you boot the installer. Whether those options would be more visible/discoverable under tasksel instead of the boot menu is certainly open for debate, but it's not likely to change for wheezy. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MN_EkAQQo809nPx8WUP5wvFKZY6pYLxSZmPQ9Q=dio...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 09/11/2012 08:07 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: M-x thread-hijacking-mode Josselin Mouettej...@debian.org (11/09/2012): Just because these people are noisy doesn’t make them numerous. Furthermore, Debian (and Ubuntu too IIRC) makes “GNOME classic” available right from the login manager, with the default installation. Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing environment is purely bad faith. Speaking of which, Ubuntu (according to Jeremy) disabled the “booh, bad luck, gnome classic mode” warning at first login. Do you mean the warning about the lack of 3D support, so there's no Activities menu and zoom of windows, so gnome goes into Fallback mode? Well, I don't see why this warning should go away. What is the reason to do so? Do we want to do the same? As I said on IRC, I'm probably biased since I do quite a lot of testing. And because you do a lot of testing, it's annoying you, right? Well, for a normal user, you see this message only once. And even though, if you know that your hardware wont support it, probably you'll go for the Gnome classic mode directly and wont ever see the message. So if you choose the 3D windows zoom (which I found really annoying BTW) Activities menu, and that your hardware doesn't support it, I found very normal to display a warning at least once... Another thing: upstream decided to display a warning. I'm not sure it is the role of Debian to decide they are wrong. Just the 0.02 RMB opinion from a Gnome classic user, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504f3caf.1000...@debian.org
Re: Gnome classic mode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/09/2012 08:07, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org (11/09/2012): Just because these people are noisy doesn’t make them numerous. Furthermore, Debian (and Ubuntu too IIRC) makes “GNOME classic” available right from the login manager, with the default installation. Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing environment is purely bad faith. Speaking of which, Ubuntu (according to Jeremy) disabled the “booh, bad luck, gnome classic mode” warning at first login. Do we want to do the same? As I said on IRC, I'm probably biased since I do quite a lot of testing. But you guys will probably decide what's best. I've been doing some LTSP testing on Wheezy and it's incredibly annoying when every user has to get a warning that they're desktop is broken when using fallback on a thin client is actually a completely reasonable and normal thing to do. Sure, the local administrator could disable it, but it's nice having sane defaults. - -Jonathan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBPQGgACgkQorfMNyt6sO/SawCeNewju0hZExEBkhrkkfX/mVaU 16gAn2b42oPLOiq2aI8I5UnkiqRuI0aL =AhIG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504f406f.6010...@ubuntu.com
Re: Gnome classic mode
Thomas Goirand writes (Re: Gnome classic mode): Another thing: upstream decided to display a warning. I'm not sure it is the role of Debian to decide they are wrong. One of the points of having a distro is that a distro (being an entity with a better view of the bigger picture and a closer connection to the user) can make decisions to do things differently to upstream. It is not the job of Debian to do precisely what upstream think best. It is our job to do what /we/ think best. That's how Free Software works. In particular it is precisely the role of Debian to diverge from upstream wherever we think it best to do so. That includes an assessment of the amount of effort it would cost us to do so, of course, but in this case the amount of effort to disable the warning is going to be negligible. So now that we are thinking about the question (and going to the effort of making a decision about it) we should make our own judgement about whether that warning is valuable. I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to be remain good and useable even on machines with poor or no 3D graphics support, and not be seduced by bling and try to compete with the likes of Apple. There are many more people in the world whose computers don't have the latest shinies. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20559.20889.98634.343...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Gnome classic mode
Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to be remain good and useable even on machines with poor or no 3D graphics support, and not be seduced by bling and try to compete with the likes of Apple. There are many more people in the world whose computers don't have the latest shinies. Yes, and this is why we ship and support “GNOME 3 classic” fully. It works for people with low-end machines, for those who want to keep their 3D power available for serious sh*t, and for nostalgics of GNOME 2. Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning* explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he might obtain on another Debian machine can even be a serious topic of discussion for debian-devel. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347377525.25952.340.camel@pi0307572
Re: Gnome classic mode
Josselin Mouette writes (Re: Gnome classic mode): Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to be remain good and useable even on machines with poor or no 3D graphics support, and not be seduced by bling and try to compete with the likes of Apple. There are many more people in the world whose computers don't have the latest shinies. Yes, and this is why we ship and support “GNOME 3 classic” fully. It works for people with low-end machines, for those who want to keep their 3D power available for serious sh*t, and for nostalgics of GNOME 2. So if it works just fine without the 3D I don't understand what the warning is for. Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning* explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he might obtain on another Debian machine can even be a serious topic of discussion for debian-devel. We normally try quite hard to reduce the number of questions in the installer, naggy prompts, etc., to make it as easy as possible to get started with Debian. If there is nothing wrong with the non-3D installation, and nothing the user can do about it, then surely a warning isn't appropriate. And a message that will be seen by a substantial proportion of Debian's new users is I think a perfectly good topic of conversation here. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20559.24293.494741.601...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 09/11/2012 12:55 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: Josselin Mouette writes (Re: Gnome classic mode): Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning* explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he might obtain on another Debian machine can even be a serious topic of discussion for debian-devel. We normally try quite hard to reduce the number of questions in the installer, naggy prompts, etc., to make it as easy as possible to get started with Debian. If there is nothing wrong with the non-3D installation, and nothing the user can do about it, then surely a warning isn't appropriate. And a message that will be seen by a substantial proportion of Debian's new users is I think a perfectly good topic of conversation here. I agree. I also would like to point out that current test builds of gnome live images have this issue. So without further effort to make a live-specific fix for this issue (something we try to avoid, as live images should reflect as closely as possible what someone sees when they install Debian) every time the live image is booted they will see this image unless they happen to be using persistence (which takes special effort by the user to set up, as it requires some place to write the persistence data to be explicitly designated). Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504f62cc.7070...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 11/09/2012 11:32, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to be remain good and useable even on machines with poor or no 3D graphics support, and not be seduced by bling and try to compete with the likes of Apple. There are many more people in the world whose computers don't have the latest shinies. Yes, and this is why we ship and support “GNOME 3 classic” fully. It works for people with low-end machines, for those who want to keep their 3D power available for serious sh*t, and for nostalgics of GNOME 2. Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning* explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he might obtain on another Debian machine can even be a serious topic of discussion for debian-devel. I think I can explain it to you. Many people who install Debian for the first time do now know what Gnome is (or even Gnome Classic), nor do they realise that they could or choose something else from the session menu if they don't want to see a message telling them that something is broken. It's way more likely that someone who explicitly wants gnome shell but gets a gnome-fallback session will notice that they need to do something about it. -Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504f6813.3080...@ubuntu.com
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 09/11/2012 01:11 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote: every time the live image is booted they will see this image unless they happen to be using ^ I meant to say see this error message, not see this image. ugh. crappy proofing, sorry. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504f6ef5.1070...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: Gnome classic mode
+++ Jonathan Carter [2012-09-11 12:34 -0400]: On 11/09/2012 11:32, Josselin Mouette wrote: Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning* explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he might obtain on another Debian machine can even be a serious topic of discussion for debian-devel. I think I can explain it to you. Many people who install Debian for the first time do now know what Gnome is (or even Gnome Classic), nor do they realise that they could or choose something else from the session menu if they don't want to see a message telling them that something is broken. If the message tells people to select 'gnome classic' in the logon menu to make it go away then that seems reasonable to me. (I've never seen this message as I switched to XFCE before gnome3 came out) I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over 'shiny-but-not-universaly-liked'. I can see reasonable arguments in favour of either. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120911172230.ge12...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Wookey wrote: I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over 'shiny-but-not-universaly-liked'. I can see reasonable arguments in favour of either. Robustness is a rather important/lofty goal especially given the often touted universal operating system moniker [0],[1]. Debian has never been specifically about the latest shiny anyway. So, let's be brave and choose the less ubiquitous (today) but more robust overall option. Best wishes, Mike [0] http://www.debian.org [page title] [1] http://pthree.org/2009/11/17/debian-the-universal-operating-system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MMeR2n2jVytS=sW087VEyMgBjoi8fTao+QEmeoeRZ=h...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Gnome classic mode
On 09/11/2012 02:22 PM, Wookey wrote: If the message tells people to select 'gnome classic' in the logon menu to make it go away then that seems reasonable to me. Again, not really an option for our live images. Two obvious options are: 1. Modify the live image to silently fail over to gnome classic. If that's not what a real install of Debian does, I really think this is a bad solution as it sets wrong expectations for how Debian is going to behave after they finish the test drive and do an install. 2. Do nothing. Let the error occur. This warns the user that their hardware isn't going to work well with gnome3, but is incredibly annoying for anyone who wants to actually use fallback mode (possibly for more than a single boot) on the live gnome images and has already seen the message. Which brings us back to what has already been proposed earlier in this thread: 3. Don't nag the user with this error. Silently fail over to gnome classic by default. I think this is the lesser of evils, both from my perspective as a Debian live team member, and in terms of what I think is best for users. I think it's obvious enough that you're not in gnome-shell when you land in fallback mode that you don't have to annoy users with a scary looking message as well. As a compromise I would accept if the notification were kept, but in a much subtler form. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504f7c53.1000...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: Gnome classic mode
Wookey woo...@wookware.org (11/09/2012): If the message tells people to select 'gnome classic' in the logon menu to make it go away then that seems reasonable to me. That's not needed; I did write “at first login”. (For those who wonder, the fact it's been displayed is then stored in dconf, see details in [1].) 1. http://lists.debian.org/20120805093640.ga26...@mraw.org Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
* Ian Jackson: So if it works just fine without the 3D I don't understand what the warning is for. It's a separate desktop environment, and not lust a lack of visual effects. None of the Javascript parts work in fallback mode because GNOME Shell isn't running. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877gs09vxl@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:38:08PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Wookey wrote: I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over 'shiny-but-not-universaly-liked'. I can see reasonable arguments in favour of either. Robustness is a rather important/lofty goal especially given the often touted universal operating system moniker [0],[1]. Debian has never been specifically about the latest shiny anyway. So, let's be brave and choose the less ubiquitous (today) but more robust overall option. Does it support accessibility? Just because you quote that we're universal… Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120911221910.ga20...@hub.kern.lc
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Philipp Kern wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:38:08PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Wookey wrote: I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over 'shiny-but-not-universaly-liked'. I can see reasonable arguments in favour of either. Robustness is a rather important/lofty goal especially given the often touted universal operating system moniker [0],[1]. Debian has never been specifically about the latest shiny anyway. So, let's be brave and choose the less ubiquitous (today) but more robust overall option. Does it support accessibility? Just because you quote that we're universal… 4.8 does have some accessibility features and 4.10 brings more (like orca support for the visually impaired). So, it is not yet up to par with gnome in terms of accessibility, but then again gnome would still be an option. Whether switching desktops (or choosing a different on at install time) would seem too difficult for those that need accessibility is certainly an open question. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MOR1Z1CV72irwPzJ=HoV=yB60VGN3wxAneO=m8fvb1...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Gnome classic mode
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org (12/09/2012): Does it support accessibility? Just because you quote that we're universal… Last I heard (and if my memory is right, which probably isn't the case, so please double check), a11y should work more or less, but with xfce = 4.10. That's what's in experimental, oops. Last I heard from Gnome maintainers, a few minutes ago, a11y support is almost working everywhere in Gnome (painful transition to new at-spi AFAICT), one of the missing bit is gdm in non-shell mode. My current directory is ~/hack/gdm-upstream.git, FWIW. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Gnome classic mode
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Wookey wrote: I'd be happy if xfce was the default. I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a default desktop and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live images. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Fmv6HP0mTS=WuCKHVZTj4zaXyaBuEgfiQVKZnXab=5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Luke Cycon lcy...@gmail.com writes: I have the added issue that GNOME seems to (somehow) manage to spawn in excess of 100 Xserver when I try to log in. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650183 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/84zk8a9o22@sauna.l.org
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On 06/08/2012 09:15 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi everyone,
is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down
the trench with Gnome?
Repeatedly:
- first login: nautilus segfaults in libnautilus-fileroller.so
after log out and log in it sometimes works
starting it manually most of the times work, but not always
- ssh/gpg agent: most of the time just is completely useless
either does not ask, or just segfaults in libglib-2.0
- plugging/unplugging power cord makes gnome-shell crash (known bug)
- ...
When I finally manage to get a running session, then out of nothing
the blue whale appear, BSOD.
Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever?
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
PEEBLES (pl.n.)
Small, carefully rolled pellets of skegness (q.v.)
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
I switched to xfce4 after all.
I totally agree with points outlined by Roland Mas that gnome3 design is
too intrusive, but even without taking into account design changes, my
~/.xsession-errors looks like gnome3 is still beta.
Best regards,
Alex
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd46989.1090...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On 09/06/12 21:27, Roland Mas wrote: here, but everything I've felt and read and heard is that the primary focus of Gnome is no longer everyone but users doing basic tasks, and users trying to be productive (ie maximize the bandwidth of the human-computer interface) are an afterthought at best. [...] I'm just fed up with people raising valid concerns about Gnome and being dismissed as irrelevant. SAME thing for KDE imho - regular usability regressions for powerusers! well whatever - Xfce, guake and tmux to the rescue ;) #regards|marcel C: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd4c29b.2040...@gmx.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 08:38:42PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Hello List: On 09/06/12 19:54, Stephen Allen wrote: +100 On that. Anyone that thinks 2 was better doesn't know much -- What most are saying is they liked the layout better (I think). In that case Cinamon is a good choice; best of both worlds. Is Cinnamon detributed within Debian ? No not last time I checked. It's availabe from LMDE (LinuxMintDebian) and since that distro works with Debian testing sources? well it shouldn't be too much of an issue in terms of dependencies when installing. YMMV -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120610160112.ga1...@thinkpad.gateway.2wire.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 09:27:05PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: Stephen Allen, 2012-06-09 13:54:17 -0400 : [...] +100 On that. Anyone that thinks 2 was better doesn't know much -- There's no call for that belittling. You're right, poor choice of words. My apologies. ;-D What most are saying is they liked the layout better (I think). In that case Cinamon is a good choice; best of both worlds. For what it's worth: what I liked better was the fact that the DE stayed out of the way. From my few but good-faith Gnome Shell experiments[1], this is no longer the case except visually. Gnome Shell (Gnome 3.4 in general, it seems) decided that I was no longer allowed a dedicated Meta key; instead, the Meta modifier moved to the Alt key (and I no longer have an Alt modifier). As a regular Emacs user, I used to have both Meta-* and Alt-* shortcuts. No longer. Gnome Shell decided that Alt-Tab would switch amongst applications, and no longer amongst windows. So when I have several open windows on the same desktop and I want to switch from one to another, I have to stop and think whether the new window I want to focus is of the same application as the one currently focused before I go Alt-Tab or Alt-key-above-tab. If it is not, then I need to use both Alt-Tab and Alt-k-a-t in sequence. And same application actually means same instance of an application, so if I have two Emacs windows open I need to remember if I opened one from the other or if I started them independently. This breaks the flow. To make things worse, applications are listed by name and not by window title, so my Gnus shows up the same as any other Emacs and I have no way to find out whether I'll end up focusing Gnus or another Emacs; I just have to focus one and hope it's the right one. Oh yeah, right, there's an extension allowing to switch back to the standard Alt-Tab behaviour; except it doesn't restrict itself to the current workspace, so I get to browse through my dozens of windows. Gnome Shell decided that if I overshoot when moving my mouse too close to the top-left corner I should be punished and forced to reach for my Escape key before I can actually click on wherever I wanted to click. There's an extension that removes the hot corner. Right now it's in need up an upgrade to work with 3.4, unfortunately. Hey I hear you; I disliked GnomeShell at 1st too, but after using it I gradually learned to work-a-round some of the issues and others were fixed by extensions. It's a major uprade and complelely new so I know that it will get fleshed out as it matures. I like it's stability and speed so, am not willing to trade that for the old way. I gave Cinnamon a good shot, but found myself actually missing Gnome-Shell, go figure! It looks cleaner I guess shrug -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120610160837.gb1...@thinkpad.gateway.2wire.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:01:12PM -0400, Stephen Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 08:38:42PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Is Cinnamon detributed within Debian ? No not last time I checked. It's availabe from LMDE (LinuxMintDebian) and since that distro works with Debian testing sources? well it shouldn't be too much of an issue in terms of dependencies when installing. YMMV There's an ITP with no recent activity and no response to pings. I had a quick look at packaging it but decided it was not fit for a stable release so it wasn't worth rushing a package in before the freeze. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120610184907.GC16293@debian
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:15:42 +0900
Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote:
Hi everyone,
is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down
the trench with Gnome?
Repeatedly:
- first login: nautilus segfaults in libnautilus-fileroller.so
after log out and log in it sometimes works
starting it manually most of the times work, but not always
- ssh/gpg agent: most of the time just is completely useless
either does not ask, or just segfaults in libglib-2.0
- plugging/unplugging power cord makes gnome-shell crash (known bug)
- ...
When I finally manage to get a running session, then out of nothing
the blue whale appear, BSOD.
Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever?
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at,
debian.org} JAIST, Japan TeX Live
Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0
D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
PEEBLES (pl.n.) Small, carefully rolled pellets of skegness (q.v.)
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
I have the added issue that GNOME seems to (somehow) manage to spawn in
excess of 100 Xserver when I try to log in.
I switched to XFCE4 as well.
~ Luke Cycon
DM -- University of California, San Diego CS Undergrad
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120610135404.72fcf...@lukelaptop.home.local
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 08:46:31AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:23:41 +0200 Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote: On Freitag, 8. Juni 2012, Norbert Preining wrote: Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? yeah, the plan is to release wheezy in June s/release/freeze/ The freeze will be in June - i.e. this month. The release comes later, how much later depends on how many people spend their Debian time fixing RC bugs and how many carry on as if the freeze didn't exist. File bugs if not filed already or feed back to existing bugs then fix the bugs and we can release. I'm not using GNOME anymore, so I can't verify whether the issues you report are reproducible from this end. However, I may well play with a Wheezy install using GNOME in a VM at some point - whether that's a fair test of some of the issues you're seeing is impossible to tell in advance. If it helps clarify/fix RC bugs, I'll do what I can but there are more than enough RC bugs to go around, I may well get distracted by others which are more directly relevant to my usage. Gnome-Shell here on SID is working fine. Yeah it went through a rough period a while back but 3.4 is humming along nicely - quick! These things happen from time to time on new software. shrug -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120609175222.ga25...@thinkpad.gateway.2wire.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:26:23PM +0200, Florian Reitmeir wrote: Norbert Preining wrote: is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down the trench with Gnome? Repeatedly: - first login: nautilus segfaults in libnautilus-fileroller.so after log out and log in it sometimes works starting it manually most of the times work, but not always - ssh/gpg agent: most of the time just is completely useless either does not ask, or just segfaults in libglib-2.0 - plugging/unplugging power cord makes gnome-shell crash (known bug) - ... When I finally manage to get a running session, then out of nothing the blue whale appear, BSOD. Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? i use gnome too, and for me its working very stable, and gnome3 is way better than gnome2. +100 On that. Anyone that thinks 2 was better doesn't know much -- What most are saying is they liked the layout better (I think). In that case Cinamon is a good choice; best of both worlds. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120609175417.gb25...@thinkpad.gateway.2wire.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Hello List: On 09/06/12 19:54, Stephen Allen wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:26:23PM +0200, Florian Reitmeir wrote: Norbert Preining wrote: is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down the trench with Gnome? Repeatedly: - first login: nautilus segfaults in libnautilus-fileroller.so after log out and log in it sometimes works starting it manually most of the times work, but not always - ssh/gpg agent: most of the time just is completely useless either does not ask, or just segfaults in libglib-2.0 - plugging/unplugging power cord makes gnome-shell crash (known bug) - ... When I finally manage to get a running session, then out of nothing the blue whale appear, BSOD. Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? i use gnome too, and for me its working very stable, and gnome3 is way better than gnome2. +100 On that. Anyone that thinks 2 was better doesn't know much -- What most are saying is they liked the layout better (I think). In that case Cinamon is a good choice; best of both worlds. Is Cinnamon detributed within Debian ? Jerome -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd39832.1010...@rezozer.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Stephen Allen, 2012-06-09 13:54:17 -0400 : [...] +100 On that. Anyone that thinks 2 was better doesn't know much -- There's no call for that belittling. What most are saying is they liked the layout better (I think). In that case Cinamon is a good choice; best of both worlds. For what it's worth: what I liked better was the fact that the DE stayed out of the way. From my few but good-faith Gnome Shell experiments[1], this is no longer the case except visually. Gnome Shell (Gnome 3.4 in general, it seems) decided that I was no longer allowed a dedicated Meta key; instead, the Meta modifier moved to the Alt key (and I no longer have an Alt modifier). As a regular Emacs user, I used to have both Meta-* and Alt-* shortcuts. No longer. Gnome Shell decided that Alt-Tab would switch amongst applications, and no longer amongst windows. So when I have several open windows on the same desktop and I want to switch from one to another, I have to stop and think whether the new window I want to focus is of the same application as the one currently focused before I go Alt-Tab or Alt-key-above-tab. If it is not, then I need to use both Alt-Tab and Alt-k-a-t in sequence. And same application actually means same instance of an application, so if I have two Emacs windows open I need to remember if I opened one from the other or if I started them independently. This breaks the flow. To make things worse, applications are listed by name and not by window title, so my Gnus shows up the same as any other Emacs and I have no way to find out whether I'll end up focusing Gnus or another Emacs; I just have to focus one and hope it's the right one. Oh yeah, right, there's an extension allowing to switch back to the standard Alt-Tab behaviour; except it doesn't restrict itself to the current workspace, so I get to browse through my dozens of windows. Gnome Shell decided that if I overshoot when moving my mouse too close to the top-left corner I should be punished and forced to reach for my Escape key before I can actually click on wherever I wanted to click. Gnome Shell decided that panels were a no-go. So I no longer have a discrete icon telling me whether I have unread posts in Liferea; getting to see it requires an explicit action, a switch to the whatever-it's-called, a glance at the icon, and a switch back to my normal windows, rather than simply a quick glance at the icon. In its place, I have a permanent icon that tells me my desktop computer is still plugged into the Ethernet socket I wired for this very purpose in the wall. I no longer have a list of the titles of open windows; so to check whether my long-running script in its minimized terminal is done, I need to go to the switcher instead of peeking at the window list applet on the panel. Gnome Shell is gradually fixing some of the things that break the flow of someone trying to be productive and not point-and-clicky. But there are points that look like design decisions, with a real impact on the un-smoothing of the flow of information between the user (at least this user) and the computer that goes beyond simple screen layout. Slowing down operations that should be instantaneous (or at least, as close to the speed of thought as possible). I'm trying not to overgeneralize here, but everything I've felt and read and heard is that the primary focus of Gnome is no longer everyone but users doing basic tasks, and users trying to be productive (ie maximize the bandwidth of the human-computer interface) are an afterthought at best. Apparently I don't know much. I just know, from repeated experience, that I stick to the Gnome fallback session because I'm more efficient and productive with it. It may not be much, but I hardly think it should be handwaved away. Thank you. Roland. [Note I'm not calling Gnome messed up or anything, I'm just saying that there are valid use cases where it's really not an improvement. I'm just fed up with people raising valid concerns about Gnome and being dismissed as irrelevant.] [1] I make a point of trying out the things that I complain about, seriously, with as much of a fresh and open mind each time, and repeatedly so as not to be biased with things that have been fixed. In the case of Gnome Shell, I happened to try it out this week, and I'm trying it out again (and I just deleted a paragraph about dynamic workspaces). -- Roland Mas Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo. -- Enoch Root, in The Confusion (Neal Stephenson) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762b01e2e@polymir.internal.placard.fr.eu.org
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:26:23PM +0200, Florian Reitmeir wrote: Norbert Preining wrote: is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down the trench with Gnome? ... Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? i use gnome too, and for me its working very stable, and gnome3 is way better than gnome2. I've recently tried to use Gnome, too, but while I got the (probably) standard menus, I could not get it to work. Eg. I had 10-30 seconds for every reaction to anything, like moving the mouse. Opening a menu, if it would open, took much longer, but clicking on anything didn't work at all (ie, the menu folded again, but there was no other reaction that I could see. At last, I managed to kill the session and use something else again. Anything else that I tried so far, including KDE, looked rock-solid and lightning fast in comparison. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120610014758.ga32...@spruce.wiehl.oeko.net
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Freitag, 8. Juni 2012, Norbert Preining wrote: Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? yeah, the plan is to release wheezy in June .oO( OMFSM. read d-d-a. use the bts and dont rant on -devel. it's useless. ) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206080923.42187.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:23:41 +0200 Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote: On Freitag, 8. Juni 2012, Norbert Preining wrote: Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? yeah, the plan is to release wheezy in June s/release/freeze/ The freeze will be in June - i.e. this month. The release comes later, how much later depends on how many people spend their Debian time fixing RC bugs and how many carry on as if the freeze didn't exist. File bugs if not filed already or feed back to existing bugs then fix the bugs and we can release. I'm not using GNOME anymore, so I can't verify whether the issues you report are reproducible from this end. However, I may well play with a Wheezy install using GNOME in a VM at some point - whether that's a fair test of some of the issues you're seeing is impossible to tell in advance. If it helps clarify/fix RC bugs, I'll do what I can but there are more than enough RC bugs to go around, I may well get distracted by others which are more directly relevant to my usage. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgptqayWEPg1v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Hi, On Freitag, 8. Juni 2012, Neil Williams wrote: The freeze will be in June - i.e. this month. The release comes later, how much later depends on how many people spend their Debian time fixing RC bugs and how many carry on as if the freeze didn't exist. File bugs if not filed already or feed back to existing bugs then fix the bugs and we can release. right, I was being sarcastic :-D Thanks for being serious. cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206080950.34077.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Hi
On Fr, 08 Jun 2012, Holger Levsen wrote:
yeah, the plan is to release wheezy in June
Thanks for the wise words.
On Fr, 08 Jun 2012, Neil Williams wrote:
File bugs if not filed already or feed back to existing bugs then fix
the bugs and we can release.
Done already on several occasions. Added one for the keyring.
I'm not using GNOME anymore, so I can't verify whether the issues you
Soon neither do I. Unfortunately it is probably another 10 releases
away from reaching a halfway stable state, comparable to gnome2.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
SCROGGS (n.)
The stout pubic hairs which protrude from your helping of moussaka in
a cheap Greek restaurant.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608080356.ga16...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Norbert Preining wrote: is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down the trench with Gnome? Repeatedly: - first login: nautilus segfaults in libnautilus-fileroller.so after log out and log in it sometimes works starting it manually most of the times work, but not always - ssh/gpg agent: most of the time just is completely useless either does not ask, or just segfaults in libglib-2.0 - plugging/unplugging power cord makes gnome-shell crash (known bug) - ... When I finally manage to get a running session, then out of nothing the blue whale appear, BSOD. Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? i use gnome too, and for me its working very stable, and gnome3 is way better than gnome2. -- Florian Reitmeir E-Mail: flor...@reitmeir.org Tel: +43 650 2661660 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd1ef6f.9050...@reitmeir.org
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Florian Reitmeir flor...@reitmeir.org writes: Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? i use gnome too, and for me its working very stable, and gnome3 is way better than gnome2. I installed wheezy to my old laptop a few months ago and was very happy with gnome too. Maybe the breakage is recent or there's something special in your installation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/844nqmf01b@sauna.l.org
Re: gnome is completely f^Mmessed up
Il 08/06/2012 09:15, Norbert Preining ha scritto: Hi everyone, is this only me or do I have the feeling that we are going down the trench with Gnome? Repeatedly: - first login: nautilus segfaults in libnautilus-fileroller.so after log out and log in it sometimes works starting it manually most of the times work, but not always - ssh/gpg agent: most of the time just is completely useless either does not ask, or just segfaults in libglib-2.0 - plugging/unplugging power cord makes gnome-shell crash (known bug) - ... When I finally manage to get a running session, then out of nothing the blue whale appear, BSOD. Is this a joke? Are we going to release that in June/July/whenever? Best wishes Norbert I'm having problems with gnome3 too but as I'm using sid I expect to have some. If they persist I'm going to fill bugs report, in the meanwhile I'm using awesome on my main machine, too (awesome is the window manager of choice for my netbook) I think you'd better to fill bug reports, without them anyone can fix problems they don't experience on their systems. Bye Stefano -- Stefano Canepa aka sc: s...@linux.it - http://www.stefanocanepa.it Three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience and hubris. Le tre grandi virtù di un programmatore: pigrizia, impazienza e arroganza. (Larry Wall) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd2236b.2050...@linux.it
Re: gnome unstable hanging? gnome-utils vs g-c-c
Le mercredi 17 août 2011 à 06:48 +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : I wanted to ask what is going on with the gnome-utils 3.0 in unstable that is not actually installable, because gnome-control-center from experimental is needed. I see that the last updated to g-c-c was in April, so I assume that there is something strange going on. Can one of the maintainers of these packages please explain the current status and plans? It is unfortunate that gnome-utils was uploaded too soon. Actually only gnome-font-viewer is uninstallable, the other packages from gnome-utils are not. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: gnome unstable hanging? gnome-utils vs g-c-c
On Mi, 17 Aug 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote:
It is unfortunate that gnome-utils was uploaded too soon. Actually only
gnome-font-viewer is uninstallable, the other packages from gnome-utils
are not.
Thanks for the explanation, that is fine with me.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
What the hell, he thought, you're only young once, and
threw himself out of the window. That would at least keep
the element of surprise on his side.
--- Ford outwitting a Vogon with a rocket launcher by going
--- into another certain death situation.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110816233548.gc5...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 02:01 +0100, David Weinehall a écrit : The panel remains, but it will be a GTK3 / D-Bus panel. In its current state, it doesn’t support the good old GTK2 / bonobo applets, of which we have a lot in the archive. Upstream confirmed they don’t have time to support them for 3.0 unless someone steps up to do the job. This is only partially correct though. gnome-panel will remain, but in a heavily modified state -- the intention for the GNOME 3 version of gnome-panel is having it as a fallback in case gnome-shell isn't supported, and thus a lot of features will be gutted or altered to ensure that it behaves as similar as possible to gnome-shell. AIUI, this is mostly a different default configuration. Nothing prevents us from shipping another one. People who have been expressing concern about this have, reasonably enough, been told that gnome-panel 2.32 is probably what they really want. Are there any plans to provide this package? No. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299485435.3041.125.camel@meh
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: [Bcc: all maintainers of GNOME applets] Hi, as it was already mentioned for other reasons, GNOME 3 is just around the corner, and there are some big changes ahead. DO NOT PANIC: the current desktop with gnome-panel and metacity will remain as an alternative. Anyone wanting to troll about how gnome-shell sucks is invited to do so elsewhere, since the topic here is gnome-panel. The panel remains, but it will be a GTK3 / D-Bus panel. In its current state, it doesn’t support the good old GTK2 / bonobo applets, of which we have a lot in the archive. Upstream confirmed they don’t have time to support them for 3.0 unless someone steps up to do the job. This is only partially correct though. gnome-panel will remain, but in a heavily modified state -- the intention for the GNOME 3 version of gnome-panel is having it as a fallback in case gnome-shell isn't supported, and thus a lot of features will be gutted or altered to ensure that it behaves as similar as possible to gnome-shell. People who have been expressing concern about this have, reasonably enough, been told that gnome-panel 2.32 is probably what they really want. Are there any plans to provide this package? [snip] Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall t...@debian.org /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110307010110.gh23...@suiko.acc.umu.se
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 18:17 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: If you develop, maintain or use one of those packages, and you don’t want it to disappear, your options are now: 1. Prepare to disable gnome-panel support (that’s for packages which already have other options, such as using the notification area). 2. If meaningful (it depends on the applet), switch to another technology such as libappindicator or the notification area. 3. Port your applet to GTK3 and the new D-Bus API. The bindings for Python and C# will probably not work either, so you might have to start with them. 4. Step up and do the work to add support for bonobo applets in the panel. Option 4 is the only way to keep all applets with low maintenance in Debian. It should be possible by developing a gateway D-Bus service that loads a bonobo applet in a process separate from the panel and proxies signals through it. If you are interested, please get in touch with upstream. If no one is interested, a large portion of the following list is going to leave the archive. Another option which may or may not be suitable (depending on the real support) is xfce4-xfapplet-plugin which is an xfce4-panel plugin enabling loading of gnome panel applets. I'm not even sure it'll still work (the applets still need to be built against gnome panel for example) and xfapplet plugin isn't really maintained upstream either but in case someone has interest in this it /might/ be a solution for someone motivated to keep a gnome-panel alternative. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Josselin Mouette wrote: If you develop, maintain or use one of those packages, and you don’t want it to disappear, your options are now: 1. Prepare to disable gnome-panel support (that’s for packages which already have other options, such as using the notification area). 2. If meaningful (it depends on the applet), switch to another technology such as libappindicator or the notification area. 3. Port your applet to GTK3 and the new D-Bus API. The bindings for Python and C# will probably not work either, so you might have to start with them. Vincent Untz has now updated the libpanel-applet documentation, you can get it from the gnome-panel git tree[1], and it will appear on library.gnome.org once a gnome-panel tarball gets out. He also added a test applet using Python and gobject introspection, http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-panel/commit/?id=5ad4d9 Hope it helps, Frederic [1] online as http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-panel/tree/doc/reference/panel-applet/panel-applet-docs.sgml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110224173543.ga4...@0d.be
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 20:46 +, brian m. carlson a écrit : Will the existing GNOME 2 gnome-applets be ported to GNOME 3? After all, they are part of GNOME. They're also not listed in your dd-list. Yes, they have already been ported - apart from invest, which is in Python, but which is also useless crap for speculators, so not relevant. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1297758699.17581.70.camel@meh
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Am 14.02.2011 18:17, schrieb Josselin Mouette: Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org tracker The search bar applet can be disabled via a configure switch. I still do hope that search (and therefore) tracker is integrated more deeply into the new gnome shell so such a applet would be kinda obsolete anyway. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Am 15.02.2011 09:59, schrieb Michael Biebl: Am 14.02.2011 18:17, schrieb Josselin Mouette: Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org tracker The search bar applet can be disabled via a configure switch. I still do hope that search (and therefore) tracker is integrated more deeply into the new gnome shell so such a applet would be kinda obsolete anyway. That said, the upstream unstable branch of tracker apparently has a port of tracker-search-bar using libpanelapplet-3.0, which I assume is the new D-Bus based panel in GNOME 3.0. I can't seem to find such a package in Debian just yet. Joss, when do you plan that this will be available in unstable or experimental? Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On 14/02/11 20:46, brian m. carlson wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: The panel remains, but it will be a GTK3 / D-Bus panel. In its current state, it doesn’t support the good old GTK2 / bonobo applets, of which we have a lot in the archive. Upstream confirmed they don’t have time to support them for 3.0 unless someone steps up to do the job. Will the existing GNOME 2 gnome-applets be ported to GNOME 3? After all, they are part of GNOME. They're also not listed in your dd-list. They have already been ported upstream. Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d5a4850.2060...@gmail.com
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On 15/02/11 09:15, Michael Biebl wrote: That said, the upstream unstable branch of tracker apparently has a port of tracker-search-bar using libpanelapplet-3.0, which I assume is the new D-Bus based panel in GNOME 3.0. I can't seem to find such a package in Debian just yet. Joss, when do you plan that this will be available in unstable or experimental? It could go into experimental as soon as somebody packages gnome-panel 2.91.x. Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d5a4e34.4000...@debian.org
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Il 14/02/2011 18.17, Josselin Mouette ha scritto: Debian GNOME Maintainers pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org tsclient Removed from unstable. Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org remmina-gnome Will be removed as soon as remmina 0.9.3 hits wheezy. -- .''`. : :' : Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org `. `' `- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Hi, thanks for the heads-up. Am Montag, den 14.02.2011, 18:17 +0100 schrieb Josselin Mouette: 3. Port your applet to GTK3 and the new D-Bus API. The bindings for Python and C# will probably not work either, so you might have to start with them. do you have some pointers to migration guides or similar? Also, for link-monitor-applet, I need to find out whether gob2 needs to be updated. But it seems that GTK-3 still uses GLib-2, so this might work. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On 14/02/11 17:36, Joachim Breitner wrote: Also, for link-monitor-applet, I need to find out whether gob2 needs to be updated. But it seems that GTK-3 still uses GLib-2, so this might work. There's no GLib 3. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d596bd3.6040...@debian.org
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
Thanks for starting this effort! Some comments below: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote: Debian GNOME Maintainers pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org deskbar-applet gnome-mag (U) gnome-main-menu (U) gnome-netstatus (U) gnome-utils hamster-applet (U) mousetweaks (U) netspeed (U) ontv (U) seahorse-plugins (U) tsclient vinagre (U) * tsclient got RMed * deskbar-applet and gnome-main-menu are larger bodies of code, but I don't think they are relevant upstream anymore; probably hard to keep alive; RM? * I believe hamster-applet is still in wide use, albeit I don't use it myself; I would hope it gets adapted * vinagre is probably wide use as well. * Most of the others are probably half-relevant; not sure what's widely used in gnome-utils; maybe gnome-mag is helpful for a11y for some people? hard to tell Loic Minier l...@dooz.org computertemp (U) gnome-mag (U) gnome-netstatus (U) gnome-utils (U) netspeed (U) service-discovery-applet (U) tsclient (U) The ones not listed above are not very important in my eyes and are candidates for RM as well Thanks, -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110214184102.gf3...@bee.dooz.org
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:17:36 +0100 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org osó decir: [Bcc: all maintainers of GNOME applets] Hi, ... If no one is interested, a large portion of the following list is going to leave the archive. David Villa Alises david.vi...@uclm.es ows I am also the upstream author of this applet. It has poor maintenance (sorry) but it meets the required functionality in my way. Probably I will develop a new version for gnome3 from scratch (python bindings required), so I do not foresee to adapt or modify it in its current form. Cheers signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GNOME 3 and panel applets
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: The panel remains, but it will be a GTK3 / D-Bus panel. In its current state, it doesn’t support the good old GTK2 / bonobo applets, of which we have a lot in the archive. Upstream confirmed they don’t have time to support them for 3.0 unless someone steps up to do the job. Will the existing GNOME 2 gnome-applets be ported to GNOME 3? After all, they are part of GNOME. They're also not listed in your dd-list. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome-power-manager does not react on low power condition in debian
Hi, On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 10:31:52AM +0200, Florian Reitmeir wrote: i wanted to ask, is the patch provided by the bug-report (included a year ago into ubuntu), is not good enough to close the bug? (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/135548) its very very annoying that my laptop poweroff all the time when the battery gets low, instead of proper hibernating. No need to CC debian-devel for a bug-specific question. Debian-devel is for issues pertaining to the whole distribution or at least a number of packages, not single bugs. thanks, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Wouter Verhelst dijo [Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 12:12:23AM +0200]: The separation of a Debian menu and a desktop menu has been seen by some as a feature. I remember a post on Planet Debian by one of the GNOME maintainers (although I don't recall who it was) who explicitly said that he would not like to see non-GNOME applications in the GNOME menu but outside the Debian section. It is not unreasonable to state that it may be confusing for people to have a menu containing both GNOME and non-GNOME applications on a shared system; after all, different UI toolkits often have different UI guidelines and concepts; mixing those is not necessarily a good idea. Maybe the menu name should be changed - All of the applications that appear both in the desktop-specific and in the Debian menu are Debian-provided. I think the Debian section should be renamed, to avoid confusion, to not desktop-integrated or such. -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Hello Josselin, Am 2008-07-06 14:28:15, schrieb Josselin Mouette: the restrictions of the Debian menu system (no i18n support, 32x32 XPM icons, strict hierarchy), these goals are simply not compatible. For Fvwm it is not right, since you can do $[gt.Hello] and in the ~/.fvwm/config I use LocalePath /usr/share/locale;fvwm-menu:+ I was working last year on this stuff, but since my whole network was destrcted by an very heavy over-voltage the development has stoped. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 03:15:28AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: Hi, On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 02:42 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: For discussion: Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and cover most users of desktops in debian. They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu. xdg .desktop-based menus are not covered by policy. Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for their menus. I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, since it has been replaced with a standard used and supported by many upstreams and many other distros. However, there's a few places where debian-menu is a better solution though. (It can be used to build menus for many WMs which do not support XDG, but honestly, do we need all these WMs?) First of all: Yes, we do. Personally, I prefer not to use one of those 'desktop environment' thingies, since they annoy me. One of the main reasons why people use Linux is choice; we should give them that choice, not take it away and give users a pre-chewed monocultural environment (if you want that, go to Windows, MacOS, or Ubuntu). Second: XDG has less features than debian-menu currently does. For instance, unless I'm mistaken it's not possible to specify in an XDG .desktop file that a particular application is a curses or similar application that requires an xterm or some such, which is possible with menu. Due to this feature, it's also possible to have a package like pdmenu for non-graphical systems. Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution. The separation of a Debian menu and a desktop menu has been seen by some as a feature. I remember a post on Planet Debian by one of the GNOME maintainers (although I don't recall who it was) who explicitly said that he would not like to see non-GNOME applications in the GNOME menu but outside the Debian section. It is not unreasonable to state that it may be confusing for people to have a menu containing both GNOME and non-GNOME applications on a shared system; after all, different UI toolkits often have different UI guidelines and concepts; mixing those is not necessarily a good idea. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 01:08:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Josselin Mouette wrote: Therefore, I still feel that, despite it being a big mess, the current situation is the best: * the default menu contains only what is needed, and we are still hunting down entries that are useless to make them not show up by default; * users wanting the Debian menu and its gazillions of entries including window managers, terminal emulators and shell interpreters can enable it easily in the menu editor; * those really wanting only the Debian menu can replace gnome-applications.menu by debian-menu.menu. If you want this to change, you need to seriously think about evolutions to both XDG and Debian menu systems, to convince fd.o and the Debian menu maintainer to implement them Actually, no, if you want this to change, you have only to do nothing. People (many of them MOTUs from Ubuntu in my experience) are filing lots of requestes for random packages to have .desktop files added to them, so they appear in the gnome menu. The criteria seems to be a program that $RANDOM_USER would like to have on the menu and files a bug about || that $RANDOM_UPSTREAM ships a desktop file for, for whatever reason. So, after sufficient time, the gnome menu will contain a random assortment of the menu items that also appear in the debian menu. Not a well-chosen and consistent assortment, but the kind of random assortment that you get when you ignore policy and go off on your own way. I agree with you, but I am only the 'Debian menu maintainer' and I do not have time or interest to maintain the .desktop files in Debian. Instead people (not you) ask me transparently to stop maintaining menu and maintain the .desktop files instead, but no one is willing to do the work. (And of course .desktop is about 10% of the XDG spec). Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Le Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 12:35:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : I think that writing a policy is the first necessary step and is the main thing required to move this conversation beyond a constantly recurring debian-devel thread and towards something that we can implement. Just saying we should use .desktop files is not sufficient; the standard isn't clear, Debian isn't following the standard currently, and there's no migration strategy. Closing those gaps is hard and necessary work, and until someone has a chance to do that work, this will stay stuck at the recurring conversation stage. Le Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 09:44:29PM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit : I am only the 'Debian menu maintainer' and I do not have time or interest to maintain the .desktop files in Debian. Instead people (not you) ask me transparently to stop maintaining menu and maintain the .desktop files instead, but no one is willing to do the work. (And of course .desktop is about 10% of the XDG spec). Hi all, From my maintainer point of view, the current situation leads to maintain in parallel two files with similar information and different syntax, with the main difference being that in the .desktop - .menu conversion the translations are discarded. The big advantage of the .desktop format is also that it can be forwarded upstream, so that it reduces the complexity of our packages and is useful to the whole communauty. This is exactly the contrary of adding a burden on the Debian maintainers and Bill. I think that Russ is very pessimistic on the quality of the XDG desktop entry sepcification. It uses a simple syntax and 18 different keys, only 4 of them being required. Many of the Lintian errors noted earlier in this thread are related to the desktop menu specification, which is a separate document. http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/ Now we are close to Lenny release, and there is enough to keep us very busy until September, but after this, if Bill is interested, how about writing a DEP (Debian Enhancement Proposal)? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian-Med packaging team, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that Russ is very pessimistic on the quality of the XDG desktop entry sepcification. It uses a simple syntax and 18 different keys, only 4 of them being required. Many of the Lintian errors noted earlier in this thread are related to the desktop menu specification, which is a separate document. http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/ Russ formed his opinion by attempting to write code to the desktop entry specification without additional reference to existing implementations and watching it not work in the real world with real desktop entries. That's the acid test of a standard and the XDG desktop entry specification didn't fare well. The menu specification has other problems, but I am indeed also complaining about the XDG desktop entry specification and specifically saying that the desktop files in Debian do not universally comply with it, that it is unclear and underspecified, and that it needs clarity and additional work to be usable for a Debian policy. I do think that if we had such a standard and additional checks and the intention to enforce it, most of the problems with the desktop files in /usr/share/applications could be relatively quickly cleaned up. (The *.desktop files outside of /usr/share/applications are a whole different problem and are mostly a disaster from a compliance with the specification perspective, but that may not be an issue; most of the ones outside of that tree are legitimately used for internal purposes by different desktop systems and aren't necessarily intended to comply with a spec.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Le samedi 05 juillet 2008 à 02:42 -0400, Daniel Dickinson a écrit : Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and cover most users of desktops in debian. They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu. The last time this discussion was raised up, the clear consensus was that, at least for the GNOME menu, the primary goals of the xdg-based menu system and those of the Debian menu are fundamentally different. The GNOME menu is aimed towards usability, and the Debian menu is aimed towards completeness. Given the capabilities of the GNOME panel (for which adding submenus is neither easy nor efficient in terms of usability), the limitations of the XDG system (for which it is not possible to define “views” including or excluding some categories) and the restrictions of the Debian menu system (no i18n support, 32x32 XPM icons, strict hierarchy), these goals are simply not compatible. Therefore, I still feel that, despite it being a big mess, the current situation is the best: * the default menu contains only what is needed, and we are still hunting down entries that are useless to make them not show up by default; * users wanting the Debian menu and its gazillions of entries including window managers, terminal emulators and shell interpreters can enable it easily in the menu editor; * those really wanting only the Debian menu can replace gnome-applications.menu by debian-menu.menu. If you want this to change, you need to seriously think about evolutions to both XDG and Debian menu systems, to convince fd.o and the Debian menu maintainer to implement them, and to find a good way to present them in a nice way in the main menu and in a menu editor. None of these tasks are simple. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:28:15 +0200, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Therefore, I still feel that, despite it being a big mess, the current situation is the best: * the default menu contains only what is needed, and we are still hunting down entries that are useless to make them not show up by default; * users wanting the Debian menu and its gazillions of entries including window managers, terminal emulators and shell interpreters can enable it easily in the menu editor; As being a simple user I like having both. Regards, Tilo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Josselin Mouette wrote: Therefore, I still feel that, despite it being a big mess, the current situation is the best: * the default menu contains only what is needed, and we are still hunting down entries that are useless to make them not show up by default; * users wanting the Debian menu and its gazillions of entries including window managers, terminal emulators and shell interpreters can enable it easily in the menu editor; * those really wanting only the Debian menu can replace gnome-applications.menu by debian-menu.menu. If you want this to change, you need to seriously think about evolutions to both XDG and Debian menu systems, to convince fd.o and the Debian menu maintainer to implement them Actually, no, if you want this to change, you have only to do nothing. People (many of them MOTUs from Ubuntu in my experience) are filing lots of requestes for random packages to have .desktop files added to them, so they appear in the gnome menu. The criteria seems to be a program that $RANDOM_USER would like to have on the menu and files a bug about || that $RANDOM_UPSTREAM ships a desktop file for, for whatever reason. So, after sufficient time, the gnome menu will contain a random assortment of the menu items that also appear in the debian menu. Not a well-chosen and consistent assortment, but the kind of random assortment that you get when you ignore policy and go off on your own way. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Twas brillig at 13:08:40 06.07.2008 UTC-04 when [EMAIL PROTECTED] did gyre and gimble: JH So, after sufficient time, the gnome menu will contain a random JH assortment of the menu items that also appear in the debian menu. fd.o menus are designed to allow distro-specific policy. It's the matter of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one). -- pgpojItIrtG20.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 01:08:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Josselin Mouette wrote: Therefore, I still feel that, despite it being a big mess, the current situation is the best: * the default menu contains only what is needed, and we are still hunting down entries that are useless to make them not show up by default; * users wanting the Debian menu and its gazillions of entries including window managers, terminal emulators and shell interpreters can enable it easily in the menu editor; * those really wanting only the Debian menu can replace gnome-applications.menu by debian-menu.menu. If you want this to change, you need to seriously think about evolutions to both XDG and Debian menu systems, to convince fd.o and the Debian menu maintainer to implement them Actually, no, if you want this to change, you have only to do nothing. People (many of them MOTUs from Ubuntu in my experience) are filing lots of requestes for random packages to have .desktop files added to them, so they appear in the gnome menu. The criteria seems to be a program that $RANDOM_USER would like to have on the menu and files a bug about || that $RANDOM_UPSTREAM ships a desktop file for, for whatever reason. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those had NoDisplay=true as one of the fields[0]. While there may be a drive to add .desktop files to packaging, there's a similar (sometimes overzealous, IME) drive to have them not displayed by default. [0] - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuPackagingChanges?highlight=%28NoDisplay%29#head-5c07e3429829189474d24f6bcc1f2bee2f385e9a -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Mikhail Gusarov wrote: fd.o menus are designed to allow distro-specific policy. It's the matter of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one). That might work for gnome and kde, which are both fairly well defined, to ignore menu items belonging to each other, but won't it be a game of whack-a-mole for the rest of the things with menu entries? (Just for example, I recently orphaned xgalaga, so its new maintainers decided to do something about #432398, which I had been sitting on for some time as this issue was not resolved. Now I check my gnome machine and it has two galaga menu items in amoungst the standard gnome games.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On 2008-07-06, Mikhail Gusarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fd.o menus are designed to allow distro-specific policy. It's the matter of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one). I actually don't like this - just as I don't like the kde and gnome package sections. The users should have equal access to good programs. Most people (no matter what desktop they are using) thinks that - amarok is better than the gnome equivalent (rythmbox?) - gimp is better than the kde equivalent (released versions of krita) - kontact and evolution - fits different to different people At least, the KDE section seems to be a nice dumping ground for anything that links against kdelibs - and in some cases just Qt. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2008-07-06, Mikhail Gusarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fd.o menus are designed to allow distro-specific policy. It's the matter of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one). I actually don't like this - just as I don't like the kde and gnome package sections. The users should have equal access to good programs. Are you commenting on OnlyShowIn? This feature is not meant to list all GNOME-ish apps in GNOME and KDE-ish apps in KDE. It's meant to prevent some silly things to display across desktops. For instance gnome-about (About GNOME) shouldn't show in the KDE menus, nor should the configuration applets for window management, keyboard etc. which touch GNOME specific GConf settings, or nautilus-cd-burner... There are only 47 desktop files with OnlyShowIn on my system out of 218 desktop files installed, so it's not used too wildly I would say. (Some of these are probably bogus.) Most people (no matter what desktop they are using) thinks that - amarok is better than the gnome equivalent (rythmbox?) there isn't one GNOME player; I don't know whether amarok is OnlyShowIn KDE, but Rhythmbox should show up in KDE menus, just like Banshee and I hope the other players as well (Quodlibet, etc.). - gimp is better than the kde equivalent (released versions of krita) - kontact and evolution - fits different to different people These don't have an OnlyShowIn here and should show up in KDE menus. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On 2008-07-06, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one). The users should have equal access to good programs. Are you commenting on OnlyShowIn? This feature is not meant to list No. the thing that makes moving Gnome/gtk application deeper in KDE menu... /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:13:30 +0700 Mikhail Gusarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Twas brillig at 13:08:40 06.07.2008 UTC-04 when [EMAIL PROTECTED] did gyre and gimble: JH So, after sufficient time, the gnome menu will contain a random JH assortment of the menu items that also appear in the debian menu. fd.o menus are designed to allow distro-specific policy. It's the matter of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one). But that's just the point; there is no policy. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org No more sea shells: Daniel's Webloghttp://cshore.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Just for example, I recently orphaned xgalaga, so its new maintainers decided to do something about #432398, which I had been sitting on for some time as this issue was not resolved. Now I check my gnome machine and it has two galaga menu items in amoungst the standard gnome games.) On my system it goes in the Games/Arcade menu. I think GNOME adapts its menus to the number of items and the hints and categories in the desktop files, doesn't seem to be a strict heirarchy like the Debian menu is. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Hi, On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 02:42 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: For discussion: Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and cover most users of desktops in debian. They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu. xdg .desktop-based menus are not covered by policy. Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for their menus. I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, since it has been replaced with a standard used and supported by many upstreams and many other distros. However, there's a few places where debian-menu is a better solution though. (It can be used to build menus for many WMs which do not support XDG, but honestly, do we need all these WMs?) Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution. William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for their menus. I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, since it has been replaced with a standard used and supported by many upstreams and many other distros. However, there's a few places where debian-menu is a better solution though. (It can be used to build menus for many WMs which do not support XDG, but honestly, do we need all these WMs?) Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution. +1 Same for defoma/fontconfig. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:42:27AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: For discussion: Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and cover most users of desktops in debian. They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu. You already opened a bug against policy for this: #484656, add it to the CC. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for their menus. You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of extensions? The XDG menu specification isn't anywhere near formalized enough or sufficiently well-followed in Debian to be meaningfully standardized in Debian Policy. If people want to see it become Policy, they need to fix how it's implemented in the archive first, which is probably going to require significant work with Gnome, KDE, and the XDG standardization process upstream. Right now, different implementations can't even agree on the permitted keys, let alone on the menu categories. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Paul Wise wrote: On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for their menus. I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, since it has been replaced with a standard used and supported by many upstreams and many other distros. However, there's a few places where debian-menu is a better solution though. (It can be used to build menus for many WMs which do not support XDG, but honestly, do we need all these WMs?) Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution. +1 I don't think that the idea of superseding menu lacks support, it lacks people doing the work (and the coding part seems small compared to creating a mapping the categories, preferably in both directions, and come up with a sane policy). Also, this seems to be something to do shortly after a release... Another issue besides categories preventing the easiest solution to be a feasible one is what to do with generic names: You would not want to have half a dozen Text editor entries in a menu but you would not want Debian to unnecessarily diverge from generic naming schemes or drop generic names that upstreams use, either. Suggestions of the do we need all the WMs variety may appear to point out less work-intensive ways but really just cover up that developing a good policy and conversion is the much larger issue than where to put files of which format and start a useless side discussion. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of extensions? Or in the breach, even. Although in the breech does sum up my opinion on parts of it. :) Some examples: http://lintian.debian.org/tags/desktop-entry-contains-unknown-key.html (and that doesn't include the ones that aren't listed in the standard but that Lintian has just given up on because they're so widespread, like Actions) http://lintian.debian.org/tags/desktop-entry-invalid-category.html (and that doesn't count Application and GNUstep, which are also invalid but which I just gave up on since they're used all over the place) http://lintian.debian.org/tags/desktop-entry-lacks-main-category.html http://lintian.debian.org/tags/desktop-entry-uses-reserved-category.html And that's just the stuff that Lintian happens to check for. I shudder to think what the results would be if Lintian started doing a complete syntax check against the standard, looking for things like ending list attributes with a semicolon the way they're required to be. Not to mention that, as standards go, the XDG menu and desktop standard is a rather poor one. It's not very well-written, it's not very clear, it's huge (tons of different keys with different meanings, sometimes cryptically explained), and the menu category list in particular is horribly scattershot and confusing. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
Hi, On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 01:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of extensions? I think the XDG standard is actually *based* on the Desktop Entry spec from KDE1/KDE2, but this is only based on vague memories of writing .desktop/.icon files back in 1999-2003. So, it doesn't surprise me that KDE implements more than the spec. But I haven't used KDE3 much, so I don't know if it's still the way it was last time I touched KDE, which was in the Debian 2.2/3.0 days... Or maybe the Desktop Entry spec is based on the minimal ground seen between both KDE and GNOME, in which case, it's sad that it hasn't improved since that point... William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:54:30 +0200 Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution. +1 I don't think that the idea of superseding menu lacks support, it lacks people doing the work (and the coding part seems small compared to creating a mapping the categories, preferably in both directions, and come up with a sane policy). Also, this seems to be something to do shortly after a release... I've been approaching this as a sort-of-integrator point of view (I've been working on systems I've been giving away, and have been developing automation for the installation process that happens after debian-installer, and will be moving that to using debian-installer once I have figured out what I need. The results of this will probably be in lenny+1, but in the meantime I've got a post-install setup that lets me install a 'standard' system, and then run the post-install and end up with what I want) rather than dd point-of-view (because I'm not, et). In any event if there is already a nice summary of what needs doing, and any tips on how to do it, I'm game to work on it for lenny+1. I'd still like to see the debian menu as the main menu for lenny though ... though I may be the only one. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org No more sea shells: Daniel's Webloghttp://cshore.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:54:30 +0200 Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Wise wrote: On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for their menus. I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, since it has been replaced with a standard used and supported by many upstreams and many other distros. However, there's a few places where debian-menu is a better solution though. (It can be used to build menus for many WMs which do not support XDG, but honestly, do we need all these WMs?) Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution. +1 I don't think that the idea of superseding menu lacks support, it lacks people doing the work (and the coding part seems small compared to creating a mapping the categories, preferably in both directions, and come up with a sane policy). Also, this seems to be something to do shortly after a release... Which makes coming up with sane policy around now a good idea, methinks. (So development can be underway and implemented by lenny+1). Regards, Daniel -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org No more sea shells: Daniel's Webloghttp://cshore.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu
* Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080705 09:05]: xdg .desktop-based menus are not covered by policy. I think this is an important point to acknowledge by all people wanting to see more .desktop files: There is no policy how to use the fields in them. Currently most people just copy the files from their upstreams. That cannot work to get a coherent system. When Debian packages use .desktop files from other packages in Debian, there should be a Debian policy what those files may contain and what not. The system also misses massively documentation. Perhaps it got better in between, but last time I looked it totally missed any documentation except and lengthy document that seemed to be targeted on writers of menu programs displaying. Nothing how to overwrite items as user, not wher to put them to test them, not even the actual paths (only some placeholders without explanation everywhere). The main menu (meaning the primary menu used for program selection; I don't include quick access menus which have a small selection of often used programs) should either be the debian-menu or all packages which are supposed to have menu entires should also be required to supply .desktop files. Having a dual-menu scheme in policy is ugly. Currently the debian-menu is a submenu of the main menu, called 'Debian'. This is indeed very ugly. But I think that is not so much a technical problem, but more a problem of different opinions what a menu should be like. Because from what I gathered in the previous discussions about this, an important reason gnome and kde maintainers refuse to use the Debian menu is that then all the programs (even the text and ugly X programs) would be in the menu equal to the other ones. Switching to .desktop files would of course not fix that, as then all the other programs would have .desktop files, too. The Debian menu system could easily be extended to have some more tags describing such properties (perhaps some ShowAlsoInKDENoviceMode tag or whatever), but that would need an honest discussion about the aims. desktops that want to have .desktop entries for specific programs ought to be responsible for creating the code that merges the debian main menu with their main menu (e.g. in menu-xdg), rather than forcing every other application in debian to do their work for them. I think the easiest solution would be to have some additional tag that menu-xdg uses to filter out menu entries that also have a .desktop file. (hopefully it already has, that only needs documentation, otherwise it should be added), and then policy should say that each package should use this tag to specifiy which entries in the Debian menu are duplicated by a .desktop file. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available! Niklaus Wirth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
