Le samedi 07 mai 2011 à 23:46 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre a écrit :
But this approach only goes so far: there's eventually going to be a
point where you'll need a newer polkit or networkmanager version, and
whoops, those need to run those as root.
That said, I think jhbuild is a convenient way of
On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 18:53 -0700, bsquared wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I would use that package manager of yours to remove jhbuild from the
system (uninstall_package jhbuild), and the re-run the confmakeinstall
commands. This is just a guess, and me hopes someone who understands
Hi:
I hope the term for proposing stuff to Gnome 3.2 isn't over yet, It
took me a while to made my mind about this.
So here it goes:
What I think Gnome needs now:
A centralized, gnome controlled place for applications to
share/offers actions: I think this might me more easy to understand
So... you're suggesting D-Bus?
2011/5/8 Erick Pérez erick@gmail.com
Hi:
I hope the term for proposing stuff to Gnome 3.2 isn't over yet, It
took me a while to made my mind about this.
So here it goes:
What I think Gnome needs now:
A centralized, gnome controlled place for
I think leveraging dbus would be the way to do it but presented in a way
similar to Android's intents/receiver system.
On May 8, 2011 5:30 PM, Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
So... you're suggesting D-Bus?
2011/5/8 Erick Pérez erick@gmail.com
Hi:
I hope the term for
No, I'm not, DBUS will provide the gears to made it happens. any
application can use DBUS and any client can consume services from
other, the problem with Linux desktop in general and in Gnome in
particular is the lack of consistency and integration.
Have u used Mac OSX some time ? There every
Yeap, course, if we/you agree it wold be useful, and good, and shien,
and useful.
2011/5/8 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net:
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 12:27 -0400, Erick Pérez wrote:
I hope the term for proposing stuff to Gnome 3.2 isn't over yet, It
took me a while to made my mind about this.
So
Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
You already did. jhbuild will install in whatever you specified as prefix.
[1]
The jhbuild instructions are for people who already have a proper gnome2
install and want to try out gnome3 easily safely: run a shell script,
jhbuild build, jhbuild run gnome-shell
Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
Le samedi 07 mai 2011 à 23:46 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre a écrit :
But this approach only goes so far: there's eventually going to be a
point where you'll need a newer polkit or networkmanager version, and
whoops, those need to run those as root.
That said, I think
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I would use /opt as jhbuild prefix and see how things churn out. Also,
the only first-class jhbuild target is GNOME 3, meaning that Xorg
support might be broken even, so you might have to follow BLFS Xorg
instructions for it. But try the jhbuild way first, and report
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 10:38 -0700, bsquared wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I would use /opt as jhbuild prefix and see how things churn out. Also,
the only first-class jhbuild target is GNOME 3, meaning that Xorg
support might be broken even, so you might have to follow BLFS Xorg
First, the word 'service' here give the wrong impressions that the
Dictionary have to be running, and that's not what I meant, not even a
dictionary module.
On 08/05/2011, Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
OK, let's take your first example: Evince + Dictionary
Let's imagine your
2011/5/8 Erick Pérez erick@gmail.com
First, the word 'service' here give the wrong impressions that the
Dictionary have to be running, and that's not what I meant, not even a
dictionary module.
What registers the association if not running code?
On 08/05/2011, Jasper St. Pierre
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Me too, but why not make an exception with jhbuild software. You already
made an exception by breaking the guidelines of your package management
system: according to it, each package must have its own package user,
but with jhbuild, stuff built all have jhbuild as
Why not at the time of the menu?
Cause it will be to slow, way to slow. Making choices based on the
data you think we should send to the service will be slow, any
decision at all will take to long for a responsive UX to act.
I'd rather see No definitions inline in the menu than having a new
2011/5/8 Erick Pérez erick@gmail.com
But if you want to go ahead and build whatever your idea appears to be,
nobody's going to stop you.
And this is just rude and useless.
This is how free software works. If you want something, you just do it. And
then show everyone how awesome it is. Or
On 08/05/2011, Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
2011/5/8 Erick Pérez erick@gmail.com
Why not at the time of the menu?
Cause it will be to slow, way to slow. Making choices based on the
data you think we should send to the service will be slow, any
decision at all will take
17 matches
Mail list logo
