On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 01:00 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/30/2010 12:39 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> >> On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> It's not as s
On 07/30/2010 12:39 AM, John Stowers wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time in the
same program.
I
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 10:39 +1200, John Stowers wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> > On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> > >> It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> >> It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time in the
> >> same program.
> >
> > Is that still true if PyGtk+
On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time in the
same program.
Is that still true if PyGtk+friends is built against Gtk-3.0 etc? That
is not my understanding.
This ha
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/30/2010 12:13 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > I have no objection to that. My problem is that in the space of one
> > minor release, *every* python plugin for a gtk application (e.g [1]) has
> > skipped this 'dying' phase and move straig
On 07/30/2010 12:13 AM, John Stowers wrote:
I have no objection to that. My problem is that in the space of one
minor release, *every* python plugin for a gtk application (e.g [1]) has
skipped this 'dying' phase and move straight to 'dead'. That is not a
nice backwards compatibility story for pyt
> >
> > Would you consider supporting non pygobject-g-i (i.e. traditional)
> > python plugins in libpeas if I finish the pygtk-3.0 stuff [1]?
>
> The thing is, I don't really want to write pygtk-based bindings. The
> goal is to allow application writers to *not* write bindings, and those
> who
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:48 +0200, daniel g. siegel wrote:
> On Do, 2010-07-29 at 17:43 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:31 +0200, daniel g. siegel wrote:
> > > hi there!
> > >
> > > as already announced several times this week during guadec, we will rip
> > > out the awes
On 07/29/2010 03:11 PM, John Stowers wrote:
This is not so easy for some modules. Especially, those who rely on
bindings and have been working toward gobject-introspection support (as
gedit, totem and vinagre did, by supporting libpeas) must deal with the
fact that those new bindings (or at least
On Do, 2010-07-29 at 17:43 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:31 +0200, daniel g. siegel wrote:
> > hi there!
> >
> > as already announced several times this week during guadec, we will rip
> > out the awesome cheese effect files and put them into a separate GNOME
> > module.
On 07/29/2010 05:43 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Why did you start from an empty repo, instead of starting from the
cheese module?
That would have allowed you to keep the correct authorship, and history
in the git logs.
You can use git-filter-branch, too.
_
On 07/29/2010 03:00 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
- pygobject with g-i support won't be part of that release
Right, that's indeed a bigger issue I didn't though about.
Actually I was not right here: After talking with Tomeu and Colin,
pygobject-introspection with stable gi support might happen
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:31 +0200, daniel g. siegel wrote:
> hi there!
>
> as already announced several times this week during guadec, we will rip
> out the awesome cheese effect files and put them into a separate GNOME
> module.
Why did you start from an empty repo, instead of starting from the
hi there!
as already announced several times this week during guadec, we will rip
out the awesome cheese effect files and put them into a separate GNOME
module. this way, other GNOME modules and applications, such as pitivi
or empathy are able to use the same effects as we do.
i copied over also
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:00 +0200, Xavier Claessens wrote:
>
> > - dconf won't be part of that release
>
> Really? So what will happens for apps that are already ported to
> GSettings, like Empathy?
>
well, they should be part of the GNOME 3 beta, not of 2.32.
Again, we can't do a 2.32 release
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:44 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > Given that apps that wanted to port to GSettings are already ported, I
> > really don't see why we're advising to use GTK+ 2.x/3.x selection at
> > configure-time when we've
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:50 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/29/2010 01:06 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> >> Speaking about my modules, I will not accept any changes to make them
> >> work with GTK+ 2.x again, nor would I want people to waste their times
> >> doing that.
> >
> > Why? As I under
Le 29/07/10 13:50, Steve Frécinaux a écrit :
On 07/29/2010 01:06 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Speaking about my modules, I will not accept any changes to make them
work with GTK+ 2.x again, nor would I want people to waste their times
doing that.
Why? As I understand, GTK3's only advantage is t
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> Given that apps that wanted to port to GSettings are already ported, I
> really don't see why we're advising to use GTK+ 2.x/3.x selection at
> configure-time when we've been telling people to target GTK+ 3.x.
Surely GNOME 2.32 can use
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:06 +0200, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le 29/07/10 09:56, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> >> Paolo Borelli wrote:
> >>
> >>> I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> >>> can and cannot use:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:26 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 12:54 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>
> > right, because of this, I think 2.32 should just be 2.30 + some
> > backported changes. If we release 2.32 with some modules using
> > gsettings/gtk3/etc and others not using it,
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 12:54 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> right, because of this, I think 2.32 should just be 2.30 + some
> backported changes. If we release 2.32 with some modules using
> gsettings/gtk3/etc and others not using it, we end up having 2.32 =
> gnome 3 beta, don't we?
>
> As for cont
Christian Persch wrote:
> >- add a --enable-gtk=2.0/3.0 configure flag: for some modules, it's
> > really easy to do and it's enough. Frédéric did it for a few
> > modules, and here's an example in gcalctool:
> > http://git.gnome.org/browse/gcalctool/commit/?id=a2250ad2
>
> Jus
On 07/29/2010 01:06 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Speaking about my modules, I will not accept any changes to make them
work with GTK+ 2.x again, nor would I want people to waste their times
doing that.
Why? As I understand, GTK3's only advantage is to have GtkApplication,
which is being backport
Hi;
Vincent Untz wrote:
> (Porting to GTK+ 3.0 does not mean that you won't be able to use GTK+
> 2.0 anymore -- see what we are suggesting with the
> --enable-gtk=2.0/3.0 configure flag)
[...]
>- add a --enable-gtk=2.0/3.0 configure flag: for some modules, it's
> really easy to do and it
Em Qui, 2010-07-29 às 12:55 +0200, Vincent Untz escreveu:
> + your module has been ported to GTK+ 3: that's the case which is
>causing concerns. We explicitly do *not* want people to just go back
>to GTK+ 2 (that would be a regression towards GNOME 3). There are
>three solutions:
>
>
Le 29/07/10 09:56, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
Paolo Borelli wrote:
I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
release (and hence gsettings etc)?
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, à 10:41 +0200, Piñeiro a écrit :
> A explaination of what it is required from part of the applications
> would be good, for example what it is expected related to gsettings
> and gtk 3.0 to this release.
It is not strictly required for 2.32 to port to GSettings and GTK+ 3
Hi Bastien,
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, à 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> I believe I also mentioned that problem in various discussions at GUADEC
> and I would have expected the release team to come up with a good
> definition before telling people to backtrack on the changes required by
>
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > Paolo Borelli wrote:
> >
> > > I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> > > can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
> >
Hi,
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, à 09:45 +0200, Paolo Borelli a écrit :
> libpeas relies on introspection, if introspected bindings and in
> particular pygobject are not going in 2.32 then I am not sure it makes
> sense to use it. At least for gedit, we do not want to break plugin
> api/abi multiple
From: Bastien Nocera
> Given that apps that wanted to port to GSettings are already ported, I
> really don't see why we're advising to use GTK+ 2.x/3.x selection at
> configure-time when we've been telling people to target GTK+ 3.x.
I don't understand this "apps that wanted to port to GSettings"
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Paolo Borelli wrote:
>
> > I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> > can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
> > release (and hence gsettings etc)?
>
> There will be both a glib a
libpeas relies on introspection, if introspected bindings and in
particular pygobject are not going in 2.32 then I am not sure it makes
sense to use it. At least for gedit, we do not want to break plugin
api/abi multiple times so we want to align the switch to gtk3, pyobject
introspection, libpeas
Paolo Borelli wrote:
> I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
> release (and hence gsettings etc)?
There will be both a glib and a GTK+ 2.x release in September; modules
should still be ported to us
36 matches
Mail list logo
