Re: GNOME 3 panel applets
> >De: Narek Babadjanyan >Para: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org >Enviado: lunes 12 de septiembre de 2011 16:55 >Asunto: GNOME 3 panel applets > > >Hello, hackers! I have recently installed a package gnome-panel-devel and I >would like to know if it supports GNOME 3's panel, if no :'( , and if yes, >could you please tell me where is the appropriate documentation? Hi Narek, gnome-panel isn't thought to be in used inside gnome-shell. However, I read about a hack for running gnome-panel inside gnome-shell, though It isn't a recommended nor supported option: http://carlosgc.linups.org/gnome/gnome-panel-dock.html The recommended option to modify gnome-shell is through extensions. For example, check the following extensions (I didn't cause I'm fine with vanilla gnome-shell): https://github.com/ahdiaz/gnome-shell-reflection https://github.com/ahdiaz/gnome-shell-windowslist Cheers, -- Juanjo Marin ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3 panel applets
I have read that the fallback mode is not actively developed, and besides that who needs fallback if graphics card's drivers are fully supported (at least in my case it's so), so you are right, I'm talking about the gnome-shell-extensions. On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 08:25:16PM +0530, Narek Babadjanyan wrote: > > Hello, hackers! I have recently installed a package gnome-panel-devel and > I > > would like to know if it supports GNOME 3's panel, if no :'( , and if > yes, > > could you please tell me where is the appropriate documentation? > > What do you want to use it for? > > GNOME 3 = GNOME shell. It has extensions, but those are not standard. > Why do you want to add a panel to it? Perhaps someone has a good > solution for your problem.. (or not, but need to know first:) > > > > The panel as known from GNOME 2 is still available in the fallback mode. > You can still develop for it, but I think with your email you're talking > about GNOME shell, correct? > -- > Regards, > Olav > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3 panel applets
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 08:25:16PM +0530, Narek Babadjanyan wrote: > Hello, hackers! I have recently installed a package gnome-panel-devel and I > would like to know if it supports GNOME 3's panel, if no :'( , and if yes, > could you please tell me where is the appropriate documentation? What do you want to use it for? GNOME 3 = GNOME shell. It has extensions, but those are not standard. Why do you want to add a panel to it? Perhaps someone has a good solution for your problem.. (or not, but need to know first:) The panel as known from GNOME 2 is still available in the fallback mode. You can still develop for it, but I think with your email you're talking about GNOME shell, correct? -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3 panel applets
GNOME3 does not use gnome-panel. You change change GNOME3's top panel with GNOME Shell Extension. On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Narek Babadjanyan wrote: > Hello, hackers! I have recently installed a package gnome-panel-devel and I > would like to know if it supports GNOME 3's panel, if no :'( , and if yes, > could you please tell me where is the appropriate documentation? > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
GNOME 3 panel applets
Hello, hackers! I have recently installed a package gnome-panel-devel and I would like to know if it supports GNOME 3's panel, if no :'( , and if yes, could you please tell me where is the appropriate documentation? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Switch of GNOME tarball compression format: tar.xz only
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: > In a few months, newly uploaded tarballs on ftp.gnome.org will only be > available as tar.xz. Change occurs after the last stable release of > GNOME 3.2, approximately on Nov 16 2011. This only for *new* tarballs. > All existing tarballs on ftp.gnome.org will NOT be affected nor removed. > > Currently tarballs are released using the formats: > - tar.xz > - tar.bz2 (until 2011-11-15) > > ==> After Nov 16 2011 (approx.) tarballs will only use tar.xz <== > > For packagers: > - please package GNOME 3.2 using tar.xz > - default options are used for xz compression; requires about 9 MiB of > memory to decompress (bz2 uses 3700KB) > > For maintainers: > - for your information only; you do not need to do anything > - ftpadmin script will automatically handle conversion of compression > formats Will this cause excessive load on the server, if everyone is uploading .tar.bz2 or .tar.gz, and then we have to convert to .xz? I haven't run any real benchmarks, but the literature I can find shows that creating the .xz files uses gobs of memory, and takes quite a bit longer than either .gz or .bz2 files. > - it would still be nice if 'make dist' was changed to create a .tar.xz > file, using: > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([1.11 no-dist-gzip dist-xz]) I suppose this pushes it off on maintainers, eliminating the problems on the server. I'm not sure if the time involved is still an issue once this work is distributed, though. Knowing you, Olav, you've already thought of this and it's not a problem, but I figured I should throw it out there anyway. Thanks, Greg P.S. Please CC me on replies if you want my input, as I only monitor the -announce lists closely. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Empty Power panel in System Settings
On 09/12/2011 04:21 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: As others have said, I wish design had its own mailing list where I could ask questions like this& not "spam" the whole developer list. I don't think opening a bug is a good idea when the solution isn't clear and using IRC for decision making (especially without IRC logs) excludes those who can't participate in real time during the European/American workday. I've been going back and forth on this, but I'm still not sure I think a dedicated list is the best approach. For this specific issue, I think gnomecc-list [1] would be a better fit, where both control center maintainers [2] and designers interested in control center panels are subscribed. Important design discussions for certain modules should ideally mostly happen on the module specific mailing list and in bugzilla. Having a dedicated list would basically end up being a cabal (if invite only) or having everyone on it (so it would basically end up being this list). We need to make sure that we pick an approach that scales. 1. https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomecc-list 2. Who in the GNOME universe are as close to a god as you get. - Andreas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Use of maintainer mode in GNOME modules
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote: > Hi all, > > As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the > AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro is only correct when used in this way: > > AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable]) > > As ryan said in the blog post, fredp made a report page for packages > using AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. > > green -> no “AM_MAINTAINER_MODE” at all (good) > yellow -> “AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable])” (fine) > orange -> means that your package is currently broken and needs to be fixed. > > So if Its not already fixed in your module, we are going to proced to > fix all the GNOME modules that appear > in "orange" and convert it to "yellow", ie > > AM_MAINTAINER_MODE -> AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable]) > > Thanks for you collaboration. > > [1] http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2011/09/08/am_maintainer_mode-is-not-cool/ > [2] http://people.gnome.org/~fpeters/reports/maintainer-mode.html We don't really want this change in the gtkmm (and friends) modules. Chaning AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable]) will change the default behaviour in tarball builds. We currently ship generated C++ files and HTML documentation files in our tarballs. Distro packagers generally don't want to regenerate those files because a) It's unnecessary and b) It requires extra build tools. We don't want distro packagers to regenerate the files because there is a risk that the output will not be the same if they have slightly different versions of the dependencies, including newer versions. It can even risk breaking ABI. Distro packagers don't want that either. If, for some reason, distro packagers do want to turn this off, they already can with the configure option. So, for *mm modules, it doesn't seem to be a change that would actually help anybody in the real world, though it risks causing real problems. Theoretically we might not be doing things in the right way, but then it would be up to someone to fix things properly instead of just breaking our modules. We have seen you make this change at least once without asking the maintainer: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gdlmm/commit/?id=3272c0aa3008654e54b6fd68af8c324db3ee72f8 even though this has not apparently been approved yet as a gnome-wide goal. -- murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Empty Power panel in System Settings
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > I had a bug this week where the power was screwy and GNOME briefly > thought my laptop was a desktop. I was awfully surprised to see that > the Power panel in System Settings 3.2 has only one item "Suspend when > inactive for...". This looks really bad. I'm not certain that > autoresizing the window is a great idea but a huge empty space isn't > good either, but resizing from taking up half the screen on my laptop > down to an All Settings button and one option just doesn't feel right. A minimum height for the panels was recently introduced. Could do with some tweaking, maybe. The resize really needs to be animated, too. > GNOME's getting criticism for cutting out options and this design > seems to be accenting the emptiness of what's left after possibly too > much pruning. The options haven't been removed just for the sake of it. Please see the relevant design page [1]. The mockups are up to date, and there are notes on why some of the options have been removed. > There are 20 items in System Settings now, which might be recreating > some of the trouble with the old gnome-control-center. I still get > confused on the difference between Displays, Power, and Screen and > I've been using GNOME for years. Differentiating between displays and screen is a known bug [2] that has been getting attention recently. > I think there is a whole lot of > overlap between Power and Screen. I agree. > As others have said, I wish design had its own mailing list where I > could ask questions like this & not "spam" the whole developer list. I > don't think opening a bug is a good idea when the solution isn't clear > and using IRC for decision making (especially without IRC logs) > excludes those who can't participate in real time during the > European/American workday. No comment. :) Allan [1] https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/Power [2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653015 -- IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
