Re: GtkNotebook scrolling usability

Hi! :), On mié, 2010-03-10 at 16:50 -0600, Cody Russell wrote: > So, right now GtkNotebook allows you to change tabs by using the mouse > wheel. Once I noticed this and the more I thought about it, it really > seems like a terrible feature and one that may be detrimental to > usability. I may un

Re: String and UI Change Announcement Period

Hi! On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 23:31 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Hi all, > > We'll enter the String and UI Change Announcement Period at the end of > tomorrow. This means that starting on Tuesday: > > - all string changes must be announced to both gnome-i18n@ and > gnome-doc-l...@. > > - al

Adwaita finished [Was: Re: String and UI Change Announcement Period]

Hi all, On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 01:22 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > Hi! > > On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 23:31 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > We'll enter the String and UI Change Announcement Period at the end of > > tomorrow. This means that

Re: Adwaita finished [Was: Re: String and UI Change Announcement Period]

Hey, On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 13:02 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 11:55 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > > I consider myself mostly done with making the Adwaita theme look like > > the mockups, everything needed is now in gtk+, > > gtk-theme-engine

Re: Dealing with GTK 3.3.18 scrolling handling changes for GNOME 3.4

Hey, In order to provide some background to the ML, scroll events were being sent to widgets with GDK_BUTTON_PRESS_MASK (no scroll mask required), but this played odd with smooth scrolling as scrolled windows get scroll events in 2 ways: 1) bubbled up from the child within 2) received directly vi

Re: Dealing with GTK 3.3.18 scrolling handling changes for GNOME 3.4

On vie, 2012-03-16 at 12:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > So gtk_widget_add_events (widget, GDK_SCROLL_MASK); for every widget for > which we want the old behaviour back, correct? Sounds doable by 3.4. Exactly, it's pretty much that > > > > > 0) Patch affected applications > > > > I think th

Re: Dealing with GTK 3.3.18 scrolling handling changes for GNOME 3.4

On vie, 2012-03-16 at 13:59 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le 16/03/2012 13:50, Patryk Zawadzki a écrit : > > Shouldn't that be the case unless you explicitly ask for > > GDK_SMOOTH_SCROLL_MASK? > Well then maybe there is a bug in GTK with scale widgets, sliders > stopped reacting to up,down sc

Re: touch screen support

Hey Richard, On vie, 2014-01-17 at 18:07 +, Richard Henwood wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been using gnome 3.10 with a touch screen and gnome 3.8 with a > stylus+tablet using absolute positioning. > > With both interfaces, I have the following pain points: > > + I can't access the bar at the

Re: Possible data loss with Tracker 1.3.x

Hey everyone, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hey, > > Tracker 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 had a bug that made them fail to start: > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=743727 > > However, after 1.3.4 fixed that problem, we caught a bug in the > database migration code added ea

Re: 3.20 target bugs

Hey, (CCing the Tracker ML for this one) On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > While we are still waiting for 3.19.90 to appear, here is an initial > review of the bugs that have been marked as "GNOME target: 3.20" > during this cycle. Since this is the first review, the list

Re: Gnome "opt-in" functionality.

Hi, On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:17:13AM +1000, Daniel Kasak wrote: >> On my system, when I start gnome ( I usually use Enlightenment ), I >> see both tracker and evolution processes taking about 192MB of memory. >> I have 16GB of memory, so th

Re: Tracker as a security risks

Hi, On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:44:40 + > Sam Thursfield wrote: > >> The design of Tracker takes the risks into account. Metadata >> extraction is isolated in its own process (tracker-extract) which can >> crash without (theoretically) causing an

Re: Tracker as a security risks

Hey Philip :), On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Philip Withnall wrote: > Hey, > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:42 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Hanno Böck wrote: >> > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:44:40 + >> > Sam Thursfield wrote:

Re: A little experiment: GNOME on wayland-only?

Hi!, On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 2:14 PM Javier Jardón wrote: > Hi, > > This weekend I was curios about how difficult would be to have GNOME > in a wayland-only system > > Thanks to building GNOME in a sandbox (thanks to buildstream and > bwrap) and also thanks on using freedesktop-sdk as a base we

Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

Hi!, As seen on http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies system-tools-backends minimum dependency version is 1.9.7, it would be great to upgrade that dependency to 2.1.2, it features the extensible list of supported interface configuration methods and wireless key types (for ex

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

CCing the release team, it would be really nice if it got in 2.17.x before the freezes. To take advantage of this feature, changes are required in liboobs and g-s-t... Regards, Carlos On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 20:11 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > Hi!, > > As seen on http://live.

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

-2.1.2 does not run when built > within GARNOME-2.17.x on a linuxPPC running Fedora FC6. > > Hopefully, whatever problems there are can be resolved soon. > > > -Joseph > > == > On Thu, 2007-01-04

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

Hi Vincent! On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:21 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le jeudi 04 janvier 2007, à 20:11, Carlos Garnacho a écrit : > > Hi!, > > > > As seen on http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies > > system-tools-backends minimum dependency ve

Re: Update required system-tools-backends to 2.1/2.2

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:49 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le lundi 08 janvier 2007, à 19:28, Carlos Garnacho a écrit : > > I've just rolled liboobs and g-s-t without the feature before the > > freezes are in effect, anyway it could be great to add 2.1.x as the > > recomm

system-tools-backends 2.2.0 released

Hi!, As promised, I've recently made a stable release of system-tools-backends (2.2.0) in time for 2.18, I encourage that GNOME 2.18 recommends this one. Regards, Carlos ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gn

Re: problems with system-tools-backends-2.2.0

On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 12:46 -0300, Carlos Eduardo Rodrigues Diógenes wrote: > Hi, > > I just compile GNOME 2.18.0 and get in troubles with > system-tools-backends. > > After trying to catch the error I realized that the > SystemToolsBackends.pl script is used by it. When I run this file, like: >

Re: su/sudo wrapper

Hi!, On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 00:26 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > Is there anyone really using it ? > > Gnome system tools for example. > Not at this moment, there's code sitting in a branch to use PolicyKit, I finally chose to wait for broader adoption before adding this dependency. I

g-s-t and liboobs branched for 2.18

Hi all!, gnome-system-tools and liboobs have been branched for gnome-2-18, most notable future changes/features are outlined in the roadmap :) Regards, Carlos ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailm

gnome-system-tools and liboobs branched for 2.20

Hi!, I've just branched g-s-t and liboobs for 2.20, development for 2.21 will happen in trunk as usual, future plans include: - hal integration - rtnetlink integration (linux only) - optional PolicyKit use - all I couldn't do for 2.20 Regards, Carlos __

Update external dependency: system-tools-backends

Hi all!, I've just released system-tools-backends 2.4.0, this release was intended to be synchronized with the 2.20 schedule, and I'd like it to be the recommended version, The minimum version can stay as it is, as they're compatible. Reasons? Lots of bugfixing, and being able to set WPA in netwo

Re: New clock applet for 2.22

Hi!, On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:23 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Since everybody is making proposals for 2.22, here is my contribution: > we should merge the clock applet with the intlclock that Novell has written. > > David and I have done some further work on it to support timezone > setting an

Re: What happened to setup-tools-backends?

--- Christian Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > It seems the module "setup-tools-backends" has suddenly disappeared from > CVS. > > AFAIK, "setup-tools-backends" is a close dependency of "gnome-system- > tools". gnome-system-tools is a GNOME desktop module (which I assume > should make "setup

Re: gnome system tools: Shared Folder

Hi, Sorry for the late reply --- Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > GNOME System Tools 2.9 adds a "Shared Folders" control panel, using > Samba and NFS. > > Considering the lack of consensus about gnome-user-share or using a > send-to idea, I don't think this should be installed by

gnome-system-tools and system-tools-backends have been branched

gnome-2-10 branch is for stable stuff, HEAD for crackpipe deliriums Regards ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: RFC: On-line Content Filtering of directories

--- "Scott J. Harmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't want to select, I want to hide everything but the expression. > (Hmmm, you implying I'm abnormal? ;-) So are you a 'normal user'? Who is > a 'normal user'?) IMHO, someone who very probably won't know what a glob pattern is :) Rega

Re: gnome-session string freeze breakage

;This is the option that will be selected in the logout dialog, valid > > values " > > "are \"logout\" for logging out, \"shutdown\" for halting the system and " > > "\"restart\" for restarting the system." > > > &

Re: [PROPOSAL] 'Change Password GUI'

--- Diego Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 18:10 +0530, shakti wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to propose gnome-passwd (a password change GUI) for GNOME 2.12. > > > > GNOME currently doesn't have a GUI to change the user's password. This > > GUI can be int

Re: [PROPOSAL] 'Change Password GUI'

--- Trent Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:28:23AM -0300, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > > 2005/5/17, Matthew Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > And as > > > Jeff suggested, we shouldn't have too many configuration tools (some > > > existing ones probably should b

Re: [PROPOSAL] 'Change Password GUI'

--- shakti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > Diego Gonzalez wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 18:10 +0530, shakti wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>I would like to propose gnome-passwd (a password change GUI) for GNOME 2.12. > >> > >>GNOME currently doesn't have a GUI to change the user's password. Thi

Re: [PROPOSAL] 'Change Password GUI'

On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 14:03 -0400, Christopher James Lahey wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 17:04 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > Aha! I'll sue you! :), now seriously, it might be worth to have a look at > > liboobs in cvs.gnome.org, at this moment it provides GObjects f

Re: Control center and capplet merging

On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 11:09 +0200, Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > Hi Diego, > > Op Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:37:14 +0200, schreef Diego Gonzalez: > > > I have read the wiki page ( http://live.gnome.org/PreferencesRevisited ) > > > http://www.es.gnome.org/~diego/app.html . > > Great work, Diego. > > T

switching to g-c-c shell? [Was: Re: Control center and capplet merging]

On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:11 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: > Merging items could be useful. However, I don't think just shoving the > same existing UI into multiple tabs in a single dialog will help really. > It will just mean less things in the menu, and more confusion to users > who are looking for t

[PROPOSAL] services-admin from g-s-t for 2.12

Hi everybody!, I haven't seen any proposal in the whole 2.11 period, so here's one to break the ice: I'm proposing services-admin from gnome-system-tools for 2.12, the last g-s-t version (1.3.0[.x]) compiles it by default, featuring a dead easy GUI [1] to activate/deactivate services, both in real

Re: [PROPOSAL] services-admin from g-s-t for 2.12

s-admin and boot-admin, which weren't compiled by default, given that they were explicitly rejected, I thought it would be more polite to propose it instead of shifting it silently :) Regards > > -Rob > > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 19:46 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: >

Re: switching to g-c-c shell? [Was: Re: Control center and capplet merging]

--- Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 19:37 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > Some may think that it could encourage people to add more capplets, but > > that's already happening, in the last 2 releases we've added "Multi

Re: switching to g-c-c shell? [Was: Re: Control center and capplet merging]

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 10:50 -0400, Bryan Clark wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 01:16 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > "just" feels better quoted in that piece of sarcasm, even if we do an > > enviable > > work and reduce the number of capplets without moving them f

Re: switching to g-c-c shell? [Was: Re: Control center and capplet merging]

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 14:06 -0400, Bryan Clark wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 18:26 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > Categories *do* help people find what they're looking for, ask any > > secretary :), it's true that's it's more or less far from the ideal >

RE: proposed modules [was Re: gnome-keyring-manager in 2.12]

Hey :), --- Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I've just updated the wiki: > http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTwoPointEleven_2fDesktop > > As of this moment, proposed modules are (AFAIK): > > * evince: seems to be a strong consensus for this > * gnome-keyring-manager: I've not

Re: proposed modules [was Re: gnome-keyring-manager in 2.12]

--- Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On 7/14/05, Carlos Garnacho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey :), > > > > --- Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > > > I've just updated the wiki: > > > http://live

Re: Gtk+ 2.8 for GNOME 2.12

--- Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > As for my position on this: I was at first reluctant to the "shipping > with GTK+ 2.8" option, but I really believe we can find the problems > if it gets tested *now*. So I'm all for GTK+ 2.8 *now*. Besides a couple of visual glitches in XFre

gnome-system-tools branched

Hi, gnome-system-tools has been branched, 2.12 stuff will go to the gnome-2-12 branch. I initially wanted to dump all the liboobs work to HEAD, but didn't have enough time during this release cicle, so it will go to liboobs-branch and HEAD will contain several small UI and strings improvements

gnome-system-tools branched for 2.14

Resent, it seems it didn't arrive, apologies for any duplicate... On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 18:42 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > Hello all, > > As usual, there's now a gnome-2-14 branch, which will be left in the > cold, being fed with small maintenance patches until it f

Re: Winners of today's build breakages

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 08:30 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 7/26/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (0) currently running 2.15.90 > > For what it's worth, I am currently running 2.15.90, built from the > > source in GARNOME CVS-HEAD > > > > (1) dbus API deprecation issues >

Re: Winners of today's build breakages

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 16:36 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote: > Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > > This decision saddens me... I should mention that there's an internal > > copy of Net::DBus in CVS since July 7th, it's just that I've lacked both > > time and internet

Re: gnome desktop integration library

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 22:56 +0200, Chipzz wrote: > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > Why can't gtk depend on dbus? How do those reasons not apply to libgnome? > > > > I don't know, I'm asking. But there's no reason to just make an > > assumption up front that gtk can't depend on db

Re: gnome desktop integration library

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 15:42 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > If you look at for example the GdkSession sketch I posted though, people > seem to feel that is GNOME specific for some reasons I don't understand > at all; the functionality is completely implementable on Windows and KDE > I know, a

gnome-system-tools and liboobs branched for gnome 2.16

Hi, Don't know if it's useful information, but it's worth telling: g-s-t and liboobs now have the "fictional" gnome-2-16 branch, although the DBus changes didn't get into GNOME 2.16, some distro(s?) chose to ship it, and they're being told to use stuff from this branch. future plans in HEAD may b

Re: Important changes to gnome-doc-utils

Hi!, On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 02:21 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > Luca Ferretti wrote: > > > I'm rebuilding my jhbuild sandbox, so I'll file a bug every fault. > > > > In the list of bad guys, by now I have gnome-desktop [1] and > > gnome-control-center[2] > > There is also at least gnome-applet

Re: Liboobs versions

Hi!, On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 03:13 -0300, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez wrote: > Hi all, > > gnome-system-tools now depends on liboobs 2.17.4 while > , > which is used by the GNOME 2.18 moduleset, still lists 0.6

Re: Proposal: NetworkManager for GNOME 2.18.

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > If it's a priority, it can certainly be done. > > I don't think this is wildly important - it'll just increase maintainership > requirements for you unnecessarily. > > What we do need, however, is some kind of co-operation between NM