As all you may know, we recently switched to a "no icons" approach in
both menus[1] and buttons[2].
Currently the Appearance capplet provides a checkbox to toggle icons in menus.
Should we (re)add a checkbox for buttons too? Maybe users that really
want icons on their buttons could appreciate mor
On Wed, 15.07.09 09:00, Diego Escalante Urrelo (die...@gnome.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 20:02 +0200, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 19:49 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote:
> >
> > > Why don't we remove gst-mixer, vu-meter, gnome-cd and cddb-slave2
> > > completely from gnome
On Wed, 15.07.09 12:00, Patryk Zawadzki (pat...@pld-linux.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Brian Cameron wrote:
> > Solaris continues to use gst-mixer since Solaris does not yet provide
> > PulseAudio. PulseAudio doesn't provide as much value on Solaris since
> > OSSv4 provides mix
On Wed, 15.07.09 04:46, Brian Cameron (brian.came...@sun.com) wrote:
>> Why don't we remove gst-mixer, vu-meter, gnome-cd and cddb-slave2
>> completely from gnome media 2.27. People that want to keep on building
>> them can use the 2.26 branch
>
> PulseAudio doesn't provide as much value on Solari
On Fri, 17.07.09 09:41, Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) wrote:
> > In all cases, pass-thru setups are too hard to setup on Linux, so it's
> > not like the extra fiddling will hurt anyone (for now anyway).
>
> Currently, using ALSA, it’s just a check box to tick in gst-mixer.
> Unless you can d
The current 2.6.0 approved version has a build issue on some libc
version[1]. It seems that 2.6.1 fixes this issue.
Is it ok to update [2] and jhbuild (I'll do it)? The only addition in
.1 release is the i18n, no api/abi/other breaks or changes.
[1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
2009/7/22 Lennart Poettering :
> On Wed, 15.07.09 04:46, Brian Cameron (brian.came...@sun.com) wrote:
>
>>> Why don't we remove gst-mixer, vu-meter, gnome-cd and cddb-slave2
>>> completely from gnome media 2.27. People that want to keep on building
>>> them can use the 2.26 branch
>>
>> PulseAudio
A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choices that
basically means we are abandoning any attempts of allowing GNOME to run
on non-linux pla
On Wed, 22.07.09 12:50, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller (ura...@gnome.org)
wrote:
> A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
> that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
> development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choices
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
Kalager Schaller:
> A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
> that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
> development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choic
Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009, à 14:16 +0200, Andre Klapper a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
> Kalager Schaller:
> > A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
> > that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platfor
Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009, à 15:47 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> AFAIK, we only depend on stuff where it's possible to have a backend on
> non-linux platforms. As Lennart mentioned, it's the case with PA. As
> Andre explains, it's also the case for DK. Are there cases where this is
> not true?
On 22 Jul 2009, at 12:50, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
This is by no means an "
>From a user perspective, and I know this is a very tiny sample, but out of
the 230 responses to the Friends of GNOME survey of those who gave money,
30% indicated that they use GNOME applications on multiple platforms.
That's a significant percent of those who responded to they survey - just
somet
Hi!
> Now, there's no denying that until fairly recently, it was hard for
> most non-Sun contributors to even test their stuff on Solaris, so you
> could argue we're reaping what we sowed to some extent on that front.
> Nowadays, though, OpenSolaris comes on a LiveCD and runs in VirtualBox
On 22 Jul 2009, at 11:23, Luca Ferretti wrote:
As all you may know, we recently switched to a "no icons" approach in
both menus[1] and buttons[2].
Currently the Appearance capplet provides a checkbox to toggle icons
in menus.
Should we (re)add a checkbox for buttons too? Maybe users that r
On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount
of
work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my
free
time.
That's certainly true for many individual contributors, which is why I
also said we ough
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schaller wrote:
> So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
> and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
> system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
>
Why would we
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schaller wrote:
> So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
> and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
> system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
I dont think any
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 16:27 +0100, Calum Benson wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>
> > OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount
> > of
> > work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my
> > free
> > time.
>
> That's cert
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Calum Benson wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>
> OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount of
>> work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my free
>> time.
>>
>
> That's certainly true
On Wed, 22.07.09 13:40, Jason D. Clinton (m...@jasonclinton.com) wrote:
> > However, for people who make their living developing GNOME software, IMHO
> > it behooves them as professional open source software engineers to respect
> > the requirements of the other people who will be using the code t
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> Please don't turn this in pointless and off-topic flamewar about the
> point or pointlessness of Solaris.
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--act
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Calum Benson wrote:
>
> It goes without saying that I'd be disappointed if GNOME were to take any
> official Linux-only stance. Sun has contributed a great deal to GNOME both
> technically and financially over the years.
Definitely, Sun's contributions have been
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> I think it makes sense to continue to have GNOME work in the basic
> "POSIX+X11" mode, i.e. gnome-power-manager just calls exit(0) if
> devicekit-power isn't running. But beyond that is hard.
I should add that despite it being hard, the di
On 07/22/2009 02:21 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
> Schaller wrote:
>> So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
>> and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
>> system as opposed to a d
Really, please don't turn this thread to an aggressive flamewar. Sun's
entitled to what they want with their time and money; if they think
OpenSolaris is the way to go, they're free to pursue it, and personally
I wish them good luck. Even if I'm not an OpenSolaris user, I think that
biodiversity in
2009/7/22 Lennart Poettering :
> On Wed, 22.07.09 13:40, Jason D. Clinton (m...@jasonclinton.com) wrote:
>
>> > However, for people who make their living developing GNOME software, IMHO
>> > it behooves them as professional open source software engineers to respect
>> > the requirements of the othe
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> +1 for Lennart here,
What exactly does *your* email add to this discussion?
> you don't even know what you are talking about
That's a terribly arrogant statement.
> and the comment is not helping to solve any problem.
What's the p
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:47 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> +1 for Lennart here,
>
> What exactly does *your* email add to this discussion?
>
>
> you don't even know what you are talking about
>
> That's a terribly arrog
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> That's not arrogant, arrogant would be someone making a sweeping
> statement like nobody uses solaris so lets just not care about it, when
> no evidence is provided to back that up.
Are you really going to make the argument that Solaris do
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:50 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> > I think it makes sense to continue to have GNOME work in the basic
> > "POSIX+X11" mode, i.e. gnome-power-manager just calls exit(0) if
> > devicekit-power isn't running. But be
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 16:08 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Karl Lattimer
> wrote:
> That's not arrogant, arrogant would be someone making a
> sweeping
> statement like nobody uses solaris so lets just not care about
> it, when
>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
I agree with a lot of what you say, except:
> b. Everything in the core platform _needs_ to work on all three major
> platforms:
> - POSIX/X11
This isn't a platform really. Which is really the entire debate here.
They're enough, alon
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:07 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 2. We need to actually have some documentation telling app developers
> _what_ the core platform is. We have some of this already but,
> at least in my eyes, there's still too many libraries of varying
> quality.
>
> For 2., my
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:10, Colin Walters wrote:
This is really the *only* one I can think of. TSOL vs SELinux isn't
really relevant here since GNOME core doesn't really do much with
SELinux currently.
(It does enough that we've had to patch bits out of the Nautilus file
properties GUI, in
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:36 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
>
> I agree with a lot of what you say, except:
>
> > b. Everything in the core platform _needs_ to work on all three major
> >platforms:
> >- POSIX/X11
>
> This isn't a platf
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 18:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
>
> For Bluetooth, another Linux only thing for now, the answer is the
> same;
> we probably don't need Bluetooth specific APIs - mostly because we
> already abstract the useful Bluetooth stuff in GVfs and PulseAudio.
Actually, not quite. Th
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:40:51PM -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> pardon me for pointing out the pink elephant in the room: why doesn't Sun
> just admit that (Open)Solaris is a dead-end?
Everyone: Please refrain from posting to any replies to this email or
anything which followed up on this ema
On 22 Jul 2009, at 19:30, David Zeuthen wrote:
You know, maybe if the non-Linux platforms actually participated in
_designing_ and _developing_ the core plumbing bits, threads like this
wouldn't have to happen.
Anyway, if SUN started changing this behavior then maybe it would be a
lot easi
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
>
>> If you guys working on DeviceKit-* are willing to have different
>> backends, then that sounds fine. It's not a complete answer, but it
>> fills in the massive gap that removing HAL left. If not, then we have
>> to think about the story G
Hi David,
You know, maybe if the non-Linux platforms actually participated in
_designing_ and _developing_ the core plumbing bits, threads like this
wouldn't have to happen.
It would be a lot better if non-Linux platforms, like Solaris is in this
respect, actually started participating much
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people using
said OS
is what this is really about. And apparently even Sun doesn't think
so since
they no lon
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 23:29 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 18:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >
> > For Bluetooth, another Linux only thing for now, the answer is the
> > same;
> > we probably don't need Bluetooth specific APIs - mostly because we
> > already abstract the us
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> I am extremely grateful for all that Sun has done to move GNOME forward over
> the years--indeed much of that has benefited everyone including Linux. But,
> pardon me for pointing out the pink elephant in the room: why doesn't Sun
> just a
45 matches
Mail list logo
