Nabble - Xfce - Bugs

[Bug 3723] Installit could restart from where it stopped

2009-12-23T22:06:09Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3723

dennis mistiaen <breezer_90@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |breezer_90@...

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 6101] New: Error message "cat: No such file or directory"

2009-12-22T05:21:38Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6101

Summary: Error message "cat: No such file or directory"
Classification: Xfce
Product: Xfce4-dev-tools
Version: Unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: Medium
Component: General
AssignedTo: xfce-bugs@...
ReportedBy: mmassonnet@...

Created an attachment (id=2751)
--> (http://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=2751)
checks if $1 is not empty before calling cat

Attached is a patch that checks if $1 is not empty before calling cat.

When building the notes plugin or clipman plugin I received an error message
that said "cat: : No such file or directory" and I cornered it down in
xdt-autogen.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 6100] libxfce4util-4.7.0 : no rule to make target "ru.gmo"

2009-12-21T11:40:07Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6100

Nick Schermer <nick@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |nick@...
Resolution| |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from Nick Schermer <nick@...> 2009-12-21 20:40:06 CET ---
Mmm accidentally I didn't remove the LINGUAS file from po/ (you can do that
yourself by running rm po/LINGUAS and build again). Fixed in master.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 6100] New: libxfce4util-4.7.0 : no rule to make target "ru.gmo"

2009-12-21T11:34:11Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6100

Summary: libxfce4util-4.7.0 : no rule to make target "ru.gmo"
Classification: Xfce
Product: Libxfce4util
Version: 4.7.0
Platform: PC (x86_64)
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: Medium
Component: General
AssignedTo: xfce-bugs@...
ReportedBy: v_2e@...

Created an attachment (id=2750)
--> (http://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=2750)
A build log from GGL (Gentoo GNU/Linux).

xfce-base/libxfce4util-4.7.0 doesn't compile. Instead it gives an error
message:

Making all in po
make[2]: Entering directory
`/var/tmp/portage/xfce-base/libxfce4util-4.7.0/work/libxfce4util-4.7.0/po'
make[2]: *** Нет правила для сборки цели `ru.gmo',
требуемой для `all-yes'. Останов.

Which means: *** No rute to make target `ru.gmo', needed for `all-yes'.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. emerge xfce-base/libxfce4util-4.7.0

Actual Results:
Doesn't build.

Expected Results:
There should be a rule needed to make `ru.gmo' properly.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 6073] xinitrc replaces gnome-keyring SSH_AUTH_SOCK with ssh-agent

2009-12-12T12:17:11Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6073

--- Comment #1 from Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> 2009-12-12 12:17:10 PST ---
Hmm, the problem is that there isn't a good way to check that the auth sock is
actually valid and isn't a stale env var left over from something else.

The xinitrc script in master tries a "kill -0 $SSH_AGENT_PID" to see if the
agent is actually running. If we don't know the PID, and only have the socket,
there's no way to tell if it's good or not. (Of course, the 4.6 script doesn't
even check that much, but in theory it should.) I'm not really comfortable
with this patch, but I don't have a better idea to fix it on our end. Ideally,
gkr should set SSH_AGENT_PID as well, and that would fix the problem, but they
may have a good reason to avoid setting it.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 6073] New: xinitrc replaces gnome-keyring SSH_AUTH_SOCK with ssh-agent

2009-12-12T05:56:11Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6073

Summary: xinitrc replaces gnome-keyring SSH_AUTH_SOCK with
ssh-agent
Classification: Xfce
Product: Xfce-utils
Version: 4.6.1
Platform: PC (x86_64)
URL: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=296606
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: Medium
Component: General
AssignedTo: xfce-bugs@...
ReportedBy: gentoo@...

Created an attachment (id=2729)
--> (http://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=2729)
Proposed fix

/etc/xdg/xfce4/xinitrc starts ssh-agent automatically on xfce startup, even if
gnome-keyring is already running as a SSH agent (started by PAM). This way,
ssh-agent replaces SSH_AUTH_SOCK set by gkr which is unintended.

As a solution, I suggest to add a check for SSH_AUTH_SOCK along with
SSH_AGENT_PID (which isn't set by gkr).

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5794] terminal crashes when e.g. mplayer crashes if you resize the terminal window

2009-12-08T05:44:08Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5794

Nick Schermer <nick@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5794] terminal crashes when e.g. mplayer crashes if you resize the terminal window

2009-12-08T03:29:13Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5794

--- Comment #2 from HennR <discodestroyer@...> 2009-12-08 11:29:12 UTC ---
Can't help you ATM.

Is a wrote: "It's ATM not reproducable for me as I built a new version of
mplayer in the meanwhile which does not crash while resizing the terminal
emulator."

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-12-07T15:28:06Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

cl_111@... changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|cl_111@... |

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-12-06T12:54:11Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX

--- Comment #10 from Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> 2009-12-06 12:54:10 PST ---
This is getting a bit out of scope for this bug. If you want to complain about
gnome-screensaver's deficiencies, you'll need to file a bug on
bugzilla.gnome.org. Nothing is going to get solved here.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5794] terminal crashes when e.g. mplayer crashes if you resize the terminal window

2009-12-06T11:05:17Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5794

Nick Schermer <nick@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |nick@...

--- Comment #1 from Nick Schermer <nick@...> 2009-12-06 20:05:17 CET ---
I can't reproduce this. Would be nice if you can provide a backtrace of the
crash.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-12-06T07:00:56Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

--- Comment #9 from Michael Rasmussen <mir@...> 2009-12-06 15:00:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Why not simple fork gnome-screensaver and in this fork revert to the old
> behavior?

By studying the source for gnome-screensaver it seems to be these 3 functions
in gs-watcher-x11.c which would need a rewrite:
static void
on_presence_status_changed (DBusGProxy *presence_proxy,
guint status,
GSWatcher *watcher)
static void
on_presence_status_text_changed (DBusGProxy *presence_proxy,
const char *status_text,
GSWatcher *watcher)
static gboolean
connect_presence_watcher (GSWatcher *watcher)

Eg. rewrite connect_presence_wather to optain idle signal from another source
than gnome-session and adjust the two callbacks to reflect this change.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-12-06T04:16:47Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

Michael Rasmussen <mir@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mir@...

--- Comment #8 from Michael Rasmussen <mir@...> 2009-12-06 12:16:45 UTC ---
Why not simple fork gnome-screensaver and in this fork revert to the old
behavior?

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-12-02T11:43:47Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

cl_111@... changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cl_111@...

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-11-30T14:50:00Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

Forest <il567p902@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |il567p902@...

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 4731] Window Manager window default size is small

2009-11-10T14:33:20Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4731

charlie <cjk@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #2 from charlie <cjk@...> 2009-11-10 22:33:19 UTC ---
Original reporter considers this issue resolved in Xubuntu 9.10 with Xfce
4.6.1. Thanks for trying to help.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5310] xfce4-settings-helper dumps core without active session manager

2009-11-01T15:46:31Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5310

Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cwickert@...

--- Comment #9 from Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> 2009-11-01 15:46:31 PST ---
*** Bug 5941 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-11-01T03:08:41Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

Jannis Pohlmann <jannis@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|jannis@... |
AssignedTo|xfce-bugs@... |nick@...

--- Comment #13 from Jannis Pohlmann <jannis@...> 2009-11-01 11:08:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Sure thing. The higher blood pressure just isn't worth trying to understand
> your point of view. Jannis, I'd suggest you leave it alone as well; you're
> just gonna get yourself worked up over nothing.

Yeah, I'm backing out of this too. I never said improvements are impossible; in
fact I completely agree with Nick. Let's see if there's more to it at
mysterious KitchM's end than ignorance and buzz. We've seen many folks like you
over the years, so to be honest, I'm not expecting anything out of it.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-11-01T01:57:59Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #12 from Nick Schermer <nick@...> 2009-11-01 09:57:57 CET ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Nick, we experienced a "Mid Air Collision". Sorry we got out of order.

Well I must agree with Brian and Jannis you are not doing your very best to
make yourself popular, but because I think our settings could indeed be
confusing for newcomers, I'm willing to ignore that and see what shows up out
of all this.

> Anyway, to reference your comment, thank you for it. I appreciate your
> suggestion. I once looked at Glade3, but was daunted by the idea of learning
> what appeared to be some sort of IDE all for a few moments work. Are you any
> good at that, and do you take dictation?

We [1] use glade for building our interfaces, for example the appearance dialog
[2]. So examples in glade are more of less directly usable in the code.

> Otherwise, I like the idea of the wiki. I am most familiar with that way of
> documenting ideas and the exchange of such. If I did that, where would you
> suggest I link it in?

Create a new page at wiki.xfce.org/dev/system-wide-settings or something like
that and write down your ideas.

[1] http://www.xfce.org/about/credits#core
[2]
http://git.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-settings/tree/dialogs/appearance-settings/appearance-dialog.ui

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-11-01T00:50:53Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #11 from Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> 2009-11-01 00:50:52 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Brian, your two cents worth wasn't. I can't imagine how anyone can justify
> such a narrow-minded and ignorant opinion as you have made. Except perhaps in
> their own mind.

Perhaps your imagination is just lacking.

> Please note these facts:
> 1. You started out with an error, and you continue the practice.

I don't believe I have. This "fact" of yours is a matter of opinion.

> 2. I went out of my way to follow the direction given to users as to the
> preferred way to make feature requests. I didn't have to, but out of a desire
> to improve that which I have already publicly stated as being an excellent
> start to a great DE, I went to the trouble to clearly document the issue in the
> hopes that someone would care enough to fix the flaw.

So, rephrased: "I started out attempting to avoid wasting people's time." What
do you want, a cookie?

> 3. I am not trying to impress with my reputation. That is meaningless.

So why bring up your reputation if not as an attempt to impress? That's a bit
of a contradiction.

> You should have already known that one can determine anything that way.
> Didn't you know that?

Clearly I did, otherwise I wouldn't have called you out on it.

> 4. I am offering my services as (as I often do), at no charge and in the spirit
> of open source software design, to help with the project and simply stating, as
> anyone does when requesting a position, that I feel competent in doing so.

That's just not how open source projects work (at least not any I have
experience with). You don't say "hey, I have these credentials, I want to do
XYZ, please let me." You just go ahead and *do something* (though it's best to
ask about it beforehand to make sure no one else is working on it), and allow
people to judge your ideas and work based on their merits, irrespective of who
your are or what your qualifications may be.

> Besides, you're the person who started that dialog. That is yet another place
> you should not have commented.

This is my house. I comment when I please.

> 5. Only your misunderstanding states that I don't seem to have humility and
> respect for my peers. You are wrong there as well.

Blanket statement backed up by... nothing. You've already shown by your posts
to this bug report that you lack these things. Yes, that's my opinion, but
it's my opinion here that matters. If I feel disrespected, you, as the
outsider, are responsible for fixing that if you want me to listen to your
ideas. If you don't, that's fine, but it seems like you've already alienated
another of our developers, and I'd be surprised if more don't follow.

> And please note, you are not my peer. I actually do know of that which I speak.

Correct. At present, from the perspective of Xfce status quo, you're my
inferior. Hell, if you want to sling around poorly-veiled insults with no
basis, I can do the same.

> 6. It was very telling that after you made your first mistake you felt it
> necessary to cast dispersions on someone else. Funny, that wasn't in your
> first thoughtless submission.

The only "dispersion" I cast was in suggesting you used the wrong component,
which was correct. As Jannis pointed out, most of the settings dialogs are
embeddable into the settings manager, though for various reasons that's not
enabled by default, due to problems with the settings dialogs themselves,
having nothing to do with the settings manager.

> 7. By the way, I didn't use the wrong component. First, you don't know why I
> chose what I did. Second, you failed to document the difference.

See above.

> 8. If you had anything to do with the software flaws I've documented, it
> explains alot.

Ooh, was that another insult? Sorry, but I'm feel pretty secure with my record
of contributions here, so you'll have to find a better way to troll.

Ah, here's a crappy unrelated ad hominem attack too: "OMG, 'a lot' is two
words; you must be dumb because you don't know that!" See, we can all play
your stupid game.

> You must be ecstatic now, knowing how wrong you are. From now on, please butt
> out of my report.

Sure thing. The higher blood pressure just isn't worth trying to understand
your point of view. Jannis, I'd suggest you leave it alone as well; you're
just gonna get yourself worked up over nothing. Nick, if you want to help him
out, have fun, but please reassign this bug to yourself so I don't get any more
of his crap in my mailbox.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-11-01T00:04:52Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #10 from KitchM <tech@...> 2009-11-01 07:04:50 UTC ---
*Sigh*
Jannis, you just feel compelled, don't you, and you just can't resist. Let me
make it clear. No one asked you to hold my hand. I asked you to butt out if
you don't want to help. Unlike Nick who was the only one who offered a sound
suggestion.

In detailed response to your points:
-Yes, as far as you know.
-Wrong
-Wrong, and of no bearing on the enhancement suggestion.
-Right, and it has no bearing since that is clearly not my point.
-Wrong; you have yet to explain.
-Wrong; I know and can prove it.
-Wrong; I want to explain what needs to be done. It is up to coders to make it
happen.
-Wrong; I just want those, like yourself, who are doing nothing but attacking
users to leave us alone and stop trying to tell us that something can't be
done. We know what we want, how it should be and we like can-do people. I
know what can be done. You don't. Which makes me wonder why you are here.

If you were talking mainly about the GUI, you should have made that clear.
Even going back over your text, I still don't see much of that. And actually,
I can't find where you wrote that there was room for improvement. In fact, you
pointedly defended the bad design based on your view that modular designed
components could not be shared in any way for the purposes I propose. You have
yet to explain how the architecture works in any meaningful way, except for the
nebulous reference to modular design, which again has no bearing. Are you
purposely trying to be misleading regarding your position?

It seems easy for you to pretend you know how things should be. Well, welcome
to the club. But it does make me wonder why, if you know, you haven't fixed
them? Maybe you don't know.

As to your last three items of your five (after stating "two more things"):
1- Pay attention to what I wrote above and try to keep up.
2- So far you've not been interested. Too bad you weren't more welcoming and
less critical to visitors.
3- Possibility? Hell, you've disappointed me plenty. You seem to have plenty
of time and use it to be highly defensive of criticism. But heck, I can handle
it. I just deal in facts.

I think I'll wait for Nick's response.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T19:32:02Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #9 from Jannis Pohlmann <jannis@...> 2009-11-01 02:32:01 UTC ---
*sigh*

I'm not going to hold your hand explaining how to best approach communication
with open source development teams. Everyone who has commented on this bug has
been an Xfce core developer for several years, so if you want us to butt out of
your report, you have nobody left to listen to your request(s).

This is what I extract from your messages (and I'm pretty sure you'll prove me
wrong):

- you're refering to yourself as one of the best software design directors out
there,
- you have little experience with bug tracking systems,
- you have little experience with communication in open source software teams ,
- you don't know how Xfce works internally at all,
- you're not interested in explanations on why things are the way they are,
- you strongly think Xfce does something very wrong,
- you want to direct somebody to do it right; and
- you want the people investing their time in all this to back off and shut up.

Well... good luck with that. Let me say two more things:

I talked about the GUI mainly (because most of the settings are stored in a
central system already) in my last comment and I didn't defend our design. In
fact, I told you that there is room for improvement. This was not a
misunderstanding at my end, these were (very brief) explanations for you to
understand how the architecture of Xfce looks like.

It is very easy to call yourself one of the finest in your profession. It is
also very easy to make a high-level suggestion such as "change the settings
system to not do something unless user doesn't explicitely say: I want this".
For this whole thing to work, you need to consider three things though:

1) Do your homework. Investigate how things work internally and what needs to
be changed for things to work the way you expect them to. Try to figure out how
to communicate your ideas to the community in the best way. This differs from
community to community.

2) Document your ideas, create a clear outline of what needs to be done,
possibly including a roadmap.

3) Deal with the possibility of being disappointed. People might not do exactly
what you want, especially not if they are volunteers and perhaps don't have the
time, consider other aspects to higher priority or simply disagree with you.
This can happen to you even if you are a professional.

So, if you are still interest in this matter, I suggest you follow Nick's
advise and create a wiki page on http://wiki.xfce.org/ to document your ideas
verbosely.

Cheers,
Jannis

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T19:00:23Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #8 from KitchM <tech@...> 2009-11-01 02:00:22 UTC ---
Nick, we experienced a "Mid Air Collision". Sorry we got out of order.

Anyway, to reference your comment, thank you for it. I appreciate your
suggestion. I once looked at Glade3, but was daunted by the idea of learning
what appeared to be some sort of IDE all for a few moments work. Are you any
good at that, and do you take dictation?

Otherwise, I like the idea of the wiki. I am most familiar with that way of
documenting ideas and the exchange of such. If I did that, where would you
suggest I link it in?

Thanks for your positive feedback, and I appreciate you also doing the "least
you could do". If everyone did a little like us, what a difference it would
make.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T18:53:54Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #7 from KitchM <tech@...> 2009-11-01 01:53:53 UTC ---
Janis - Thanks for the response. Let me first state that your statement
regarding the panel "bug" not having to do with this is clearly a
misunderstanding of what I'm pointing out. The overall issue remains; the user
doesn't know and couldn't care less where the settings are failing, but the
fact remains that they are. My suggestion about a DE feature request, or
enhancement as Xfce calls it, is to group all settings into one place (as they
should be) and to make sure that they cannot be changed without conscious user
input. That such is attempted at being done now in some piecemeal way is a
poor excuse for doing it correctly, and certainly not the right way to design
software. Of that there can be no argument. Besides, it ain't working!

I know that there does not have to be many separate settings applets simply
because you modularize. That is your misunderstanding of the options in
programming. The proper way to handle that problem is to make the central
settings manager note when other modules are added into the DE and make their
settings available in that one centralized interface. I would have thought
that programmers knew that, so you can imagine my surprise at your claims.

(By the way, in watching your video, I thought it was to demonstrate the errors
you found in the system. I must say that I am at a loss as to the point you
are trying to make with your reference. It doesn't seem to apply to my
report.)

If things belong to different applications, as you assert, then there should be
a clear explanation why that is. That way, and only that way, will the user be
able to give thoughtful feedback to the coders. (My experience says that such
is not the case, but I am willing to consider your explanation if it becomes
available.)

Believe me, the way to find out if someone is being arrogant or not is to try
them and find out. That is the only sure way. I have found that most people
don't like to have their shortcomings opened up to public scrutiny, and that is
why there is such misleading and negative argument, and such fierce defense of
buggy software. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Besides, free help
is good. So try me already.

What I was referring to was the obvious mistake in thinking what I described
above; that the first mistake was modularizing the components without any way
to bring them together in one place. That was a flaw from the beginning, and
it is perpetuated all along each and every upgrade without ever addressing it.
Such a simple, but damning, oversight, and evidence in and of itself. (By the
way, if you are a fine software developer, why are you defending this poor
software design. It is clear that good leadership is needed here, and that is
what a director does. I still stand ready and available to help you and other
designers/developers get the job done correctly. All you've got to do is ask.)

What appears to be unclear to you is that long term evolution versus immediate
perfection are not the only options here. The better one would have been to
speak with an expert on this issue and made a better development map from the
beginning. While I understand your desire not to be bothered with other
peoples' viewpoints, I still don't understand why they overlooked that idea,
and no one has explained it yet. Can you?

I am not sure as to why you solicit support for your negative view, but I can
imagine. I could say something similar, such as "Idiocy anyone?". You know,
instead of being critical, you might have started with a better attitude.
Maybe introducing yourself and stating who the heck "we" are. Second, don't
try to tell a user who first spent a half hour trying to find the best way to
make a suggestion that he did it wrong. You simply contradict the Xfce web
site direction. Third, don't tell reporters to report somewhere else without
explaining why that is preferred rather than the specified place. Fourth,
clearly define what you mean by "mockups and concepts" and why the actual
coders would have it in that particular format. Fifth, never tell someone to
go to a mailing list when there are forums and bug reporting web sites for that
very purpose. If the programmers can't use their own web site, the problem
goes much deeper than I imagined.

If you have something to add to support your position regarding my feature
request (and only that), then I will listen. If not, stay the heck away from
my report. Thank you.

Brian, your two cents worth wasn't. I can't imagine how anyone can justify
such a narrow-minded and ignorant opinion as you have made. Except perhaps in
their own mind.

Please note these facts:
1. You started out with an error, and you continue the practice.
2. I went out of my way to follow the direction given to users as to the
preferred way to make feature requests. I didn't have to, but out of a desire
to improve that which I have already publicly stated as being an excellent
start to a great DE, I went to the trouble to clearly document the issue in the
hopes that someone would care enough to fix the flaw.
3. I am not trying to impress with my reputation. That is meaningless. You
should have already known that one can determine anything that way. Didn't you
know that?
4. I am offering my services as (as I often do), at no charge and in the spirit
of open source software design, to help with the project and simply stating, as
anyone does when requesting a position, that I feel competent in doing so.
Besides, you're the person who started that dialog. That is yet another place
you should not have commented.
5. Only your misunderstanding states that I don't seem to have humility and
respect for my peers. You are wrong there as well. And please note, you are
not my peer. I actually do know of that which I speak.
6. It was very telling that after you made your first mistake you felt it
necessary to cast dispersions on someone else. Funny, that wasn't in your
first thoughtless submission.
7. By the way, I didn't use the wrong component. First, you don't know why I
chose what I did. Second, you failed to document the difference.
8. If you had anything to do with the software flaws I've documented, it
explains alot.

You must be ecstatic now, knowing how wrong you are. From now on, please butt
out of my report.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T16:29:28Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #6 from Nick Schermer <nick@...> 2009-11-01 00:29:26 CET ---
KitchM, maybe you can create some concepts in glade3, the way you think we
should handle this. Or a page on our wiki (wiki.xfce.org) or in this bug with
stuff that should be merged/split, including arguments.
You need no programming skills for that, should be the least you could do if
you want to see some real changes.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T11:56:04Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #5 from Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> 2009-10-31 11:56:03 PDT ---
> The only thing that is valid is good argumentation,

And even better: elegant code that implements a good idea.

> so *please* don't try to impress anyone with your reputation. You'll
> quickly be marked as arrogant and incompetent otherwise.

Yep, that was my first reaction. I know some really great software design
managers and directors. One component of that greatness is a sense of humility
and respect for their peers that the reporter here doesn't seem to have.

Anyway, I'm not expecting anything. Sounds like just another complainer who
doesn't really want to do any actual work. I'd love to be proven wrong,
though.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T08:20:35Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

Jérôme Guelfucci <jeromeg@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jeromeg@...

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T07:37:21Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

--- Comment #4 from Jannis Pohlmann <jannis@...> 2009-10-31 14:37:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The continual problem with items changing within the desktop environment is
> very annoying. I've even booted up after shutting down from a perfectly good
> DE and found that there were no panels. I had to run xfce4-panel from the
> command line to get them back. It would be very good to have all settings
> centralized into one place, and able to be made unchangable.

The "no panels" problem probably is a bug in the panel, not in the config
storage backend. We already have a centralized settings backend (xfconf), so
obviously that is irrelevant to this issue. A centralized settings manager GUI
won't help in avoiding this problem either.

> "Centralized" means not having desktop, appearance, windows and other settings
> under different managers. There should not be more than one place where these
> things are handled. Also, settings are settings, and there is no need to have
> separate GUI's for each section of the environment. Only one GUI interface is
> needed for all of them. The existing Settings Manager is not an interface;
> rather it is a folder view of 17 applets. That's not a manager; that's a
> folder.

So, first of all, this is a problem that affects almost *all* components of
Xfce. So it's not something you file as a request in a bug tracker. It's
something you discuss on a mailinglist. So maybe we should take this to
xfce4-dev@... to be more productive.

With so many configuration options, you will *always* end up with categories
for these options or with a hierarchy of options. We have a mixture of both.
The main reason why we have settings split across many dialogs is because of
the modular architecture of Xfce. You can run the window manager without the
rest, you can run the file manager without the rest and so on. Consequently, we
don't force people to install everything together and that's why you only get
to see those dialogs for which you have applications installed. This simply is
the easiest way to do it.

Last year, I hacked up support for "embedded" dialogs, something you can see in
this video:

http://lunar-linux.org/~jannis/videos/xfce/xfce4-settings-manager-20080912-2.ogv

This hasn't made it into 4.6 because some of our dialogs have a width/height
ratio of 4:4 or even 4:5 instead of 4:3 or 5:3 which is needed for this concept
to work properly.

I wouldn't mind simplifying the settings dialogs, making them more consistent.
But merging e.g. the keyboard settings won't be easy as they belong to
different applications (for valid reasons).

> Also, the groupings could be inproved. There are at least two different places
> where mouse, keyboard, and icons are found. There is even one applet that
> contains within it a tab for "Settings". There is also an applet named
> "Accessibility", and a tab in another applet with the same name. The same for
> "Workspaces". Those are examples of being redundant.

Not entirely, for the reasons described above. The keyboard shortcuts for
launching applications are monitored and executed by a different application
than the window manager shortcuts. Those cannot be merged easily.

(In reply to comment #3)
> In any case, I'm not a coder. What I am, however, is one of the very best
> software design directors available. And that is something that coders need
> desperately. Xfce is no exception to the fact that good leadership is badly
> needed. Hence the feature improvement request.

And I am one of the world's finest software developers. There's only one
problem: like you, I have little evidence for that and even if I did, it
wouldn't matter. I'm happy that, in open source, titles and certificates don't
count. The only thing that is valid is good argumentation, so *please* put
don't try to impress anyone with your reputation. You'll quickly be marked as
arrogant and incompetent otherwise.

> What I don't understand is how programmers start down these bad paths in
> creating a simple interface. It is almost as if it is all a patchwork of bits
> and pieces of code brought together in a poor manner. And yet, it is so easily
> fixed.

If you are such a good software design director, as you say, you should've
heard of how software evolves over the years and design-once-use-forever
thinking is highly unrealistic.

Xfce has existed for more than ten years and while the settings storage has
been redesigned several times (e.g. mcs -> xfconf for 4.6), the settings
dialogs GUI has not been changed *that* much lately. We're open to suggestions
and improvements (to be proposed on xfce4-dev@... if they are of general
nature) a "I don't understand how you programmers could make such a mistake"
attitude won't get us anywhere. Ivory towers, anyone?

> Oh well, if anyone needs my design help on this, I'm always available.

We can always use feedback on our GUI. Feel free to create mockups and concepts
for an improved settings manager on the mailing list in order to start a
prosperous discussion.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-31T06:42:31Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

KitchM <tech@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tech@...

--- Comment #3 from KitchM <tech@...> 2009-10-31 13:42:30 UTC ---
Yes, it is confusing to use this particular bugzilla implementation. It is the
hands-down most non-intuitive interface I've ever used, so I can understand
your confusion. I know I can't figure it out. (By the way, apology accepted.)

In any case, I'm not a coder. What I am, however, is one of the very best
software design directors available. And that is something that coders need
desperately. Xfce is no exception to the fact that good leadership is badly
needed. Hence the feature improvement request.

What I don't understand is how programmers start down these bad paths in
creating a simple interface. It is almost as if it is all a patchwork of bits
and pieces of code brought together in a poor manner. And yet, it is so easily
fixed.

Oh well, if anyone needs my design help on this, I'm always available.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5934] Xfce system-wide settings

2009-10-30T21:58:33Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5934

Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|Settings Manager |General
AssignedTo|bjt23@... |xfce-bugs@...

--- Comment #2 from Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23@...> 2009-10-30 21:58:33 PDT ---
(Er, sorry, you didn't touch the assignee, you just didn't use the right
component.)

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5930] New: xinitrc containing GTK_PATH and LIBGLADE_MODULE_PATH breaks 32bit apps

2009-10-30T06:20:26Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5930

Summary: xinitrc containing GTK_PATH and LIBGLADE_MODULE_PATH
breaks 32bit apps
Classification: Xfce
Product: Xfce-utils
Version: Unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: Medium
Component: General
AssignedTo: xfce-bugs@...
ReportedBy: stick@...

I've received the report that lines containing GTK_PATH and
LIBGLADE_MODULE_PATH in /etc/xdg/xfce4/xinitrc break 32bit applications.

$ grep -n 'GTK_PATH=\|LIBGLADE_MODULE_PATH=' /etc/xdg/xfce4/xinitrc
64:export LIBGLADE_MODULE_PATH="$LIBGLADE_MODULE_PATH:/usr/lib64/libglade/2.0"
71:export GTK_PATH="$GTK_PATH:/usr/lib64/gtk-2.0"

32-bit applications (eg. acroread or vmware workstation) are not able to find
themes correctly. This does not happen if the mentioned two lines are removed.

Question: Is it still necessary needed to setup these two variables. The
reporter thinks this was needed when /opt/gnome was used, but it is not needed
anymore.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-10-30T03:02:17Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

--- Comment #7 from Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...> 2009-10-30 10:02:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What about a GTK+ front-end to Xscreensaver's unlock dialog? It's not gonna be
> easy but it will be possibly more secure than gnome-screensaver and
> kscreensaver. See http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html

Unless you're an X11 security expert, I don't think it's a good idea (exactly
for the stuff explained in the above page)

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-10-30T02:42:40Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

--- Comment #6 from Steve Dodier <sidnioulz@...> 2009-10-30 09:42:39 UTC ---
What about a GTK+ front-end to Xscreensaver's unlock dialog? It's not gonna be
easy but it will be possibly more secure than gnome-screensaver and
kscreensaver. See http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-10-30T02:33:38Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

Ali <aliov@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |aliov@...

--- Comment #5 from Ali <aliov@...> 2009-10-30 09:33:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Yes, it definitely suck, but there's not much one can do, exept asking for
> GNOME people to revert the change and stay with the X idle counter.

D-Bus is a very important message system, but in many places (like the case of
gnome-screen-saver), it is abused, causing lot of problems and hidden runtime
dependencies.

Another trivial stuff was moved from gnome-screen-saver (and gpm also) to the
gnome session is the ability of inhibiting automatic DPMS activation on idle
(or automatic sleeps for gpm), so no way for a media player to prevent gnome
screen saver from switching off the screen if gnome session isn't running, this
definitely sucks, i think is time to have our own screen saver application.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs

[Bug 5927] gnome-screensaver not activated

2009-10-30T02:13:10Z

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5927

Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |corsac@...

--- Comment #4 from Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...> 2009-10-30 09:13:09 UTC ---
Yes, it definitely suck, but there's not much one can do, exept asking for
GNOME people to revert the change and stay with the X idle counter.

--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
Xfce-bugs@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs