| |||||||||||||
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" modeGNOME Shell to support a "classic" modePosted Nov 21, 2012 17:51 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855)In reply to: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode by raven667 Parent article: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode
GNOME 3 wasn't designed to be parallel installable. Right? continuing to repeat a meme won't make it become truth, you do realize that? GNOME's platform is, and has always been, parallel installable - that's an acquired skill, and we've been saying how to do it properly for the past 10 years. applications are not parallel installable (or, at least, they are not by default): there is no totem3 to be used alongside totem2, or nautilus3 to be used alongside nautilus2. that's perfectly fine, and it's up to the individual maintainers to decide that. you cannot run gnome-panel2 alongside with gnome-panel3 either, because (believe it or not) gnome-panel is an application; the applet library is parallel installable, though. I sincerely hope that people stop repeating crap propaganda spewed by people with far less than the required amount of clue and an axe to grind.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 18:13 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
By your description it seems that there are processes and not just libraries that GNOME2 applications can depend on, such as gnome-panel, that aren't parallel installable with GNOME3. I'm not familiar with the internals of GNOME but what about notifications or IPC or VFS plugins?
It seems that it would be good to make the same sort of platform API guarantees that the Linux kernel makes to userspace or that glibc makes so that third parties can expect their application binaries to continue to function for decades and that the system won't be deprecated out from underneath them.
Anyway the main point of the article is supporting a GNOME 2 style theming using extensions to GNOME Shell which seems like a good idea for users who prefer the old style workflow. Even Windows maintained a classic interface option when introducing changes XP and 8 and was more successful for doing so. This is a positive thing.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 18:43 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]
Does Windows Classic work for applications more complex than Notepad, like say MS Office?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 18:51 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Certainly. Even Windows 8 (desktop version) can run Win32 applications written in 1996.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:17 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
almost.
There are some APIs that many wind 95/98 apps depended on that are broken in recent versions of windows.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 0:40 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Wrong. Not "were broken in recent versions of Windows", it is "are utterly broken since WinNT 4.0 at least." Been burned by it.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 22:23 UTC (Thu) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]
What APIs are broken? Appcompat issues are important.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 15:47 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Anything WordPerfect relies on? My version - certified for W2K iirc, doesn't work very well on XP. And my old version, that runs fine on Win9x, is totally broken on XP :-( I don't think I can even install that newer version on 7.
A lot of my wife's programs - sold as "runs on everything Windows" in the Vista days, is now broken on 7. And because we've got the Home version, running it in XP-compat mode isn't an option :-(
Cheers,
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:29 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]
Of course. Just like GNOME 3 happily runs XMMS.
I want to know if Office looks like an app written in 98 if you enable the Windows Classic Theme.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:37 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link]
Office is also funny example, given that it has its own toolkit as well. :-D
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:14 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] I'm not familiar with the internals of GNOME but what about notifications or IPC or VFS plugins? IPC and VFS, and settings, are sitting at the GLib level, our lowest common denominator; GLib's API and ABI were not bumped. a lot of functionality that was in separate libraries was deprecated and moved into GTK+ 3.x and GLib; the symbols are different, and the libraries are still available for applications to use, so you can definitely run a GNOME 2 application in GNOME 3, should you choose to do so. obviously, it would be better to port to non deprecated tech, but it's not mandatory. let me give you a for instance: Banshee is a GTK+ 2.x (and GNOME 2.x) applications, given that only recently Mono has been updated to support GNOME 3 API; I can use it without an hitch under GNOME 3.4 and 3.6, and all its functionality remains untouched. true, some stuff works better when integrated in GNOME 2's panel - but to be fair, it's all inside extensions that can be removed, and I look forward to the point where Banshee will be a proper GNOME application again. the core applications in GNOME are tied pretty much with the rest of the environment, because they are designed to be that way; you can avoid using Nautilus, after all, but you cannot complain that Nautilus 3.6 does not work without the rest of its dependencies, because Nautilus is not meant to be a file manager that can work under every desktop environment under the sun - and it certainly isn't up to you to tell the Nautilus maintainers what they have to spend time on. the whole point of the "GNOME Classic" exercise is to provide a different workflow for some users without shipping a completely separate set of dependencies (which we cannot maintain, and that nobody stepped up to maintain in the past 3 years, even after repeated calls for it).
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:23 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
> true, some stuff works better when integrated in GNOME 2's panel
And what do we users gain from all this application breakage?
Less "API cruft" for the devs?
Wow sounds like a good reason for my music player to break. Thanks guys keep up the good work!
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:38 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Please be less vague, less accusing and less pointless sarcasm. That or don't complain when you get a response in kind.
As said elsewhere: XMMS still will run fine under GNOME 3. And I do mean the gtk+1.x compiled XMMS, though maybe your distribution doesn't ship it anymore.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:47 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
So XMMS with gtk+1.x is the official media player for GNOME3?
All the iTunes users will be jealous. This year will surely be the year of the linux desktop.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:02 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link] Ah, the stupid sarcasm again. Anyway, to quote yourself
And what do we users gain from all this application breakage? You said application breakage in some weird relation to the GNOME 2 panel. I responded to that. Now instead it is about some official GNOME 3 media player? Whatever.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:54 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
> You said application breakage in some weird relation to the GNOME 2 panel
Someone complained about parallel installs of GNOME2 and 3.
ebassi says that the gnome 2 libs are parallel installable so it's all good.
But then later admits that doesn't actually help that much since application functionality is often reduced/broken in GNOME3. HIS example was Banshee. But it's all the user/applications fault, not GNOME3.
I questioned the benefits of the changes that caused that breakage.
Your defense was that OMG! XMMS still works.
A true WTF. I'm not even sure why you would make the leap to XMMS.
XMMS has nothing to do with this conversation.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:01 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
The work done at the library level doesn't always help the end-user though. E.g. "Referencer" is a really nice GTK+ C++ BibTex management app. It used some APIs that moved from a GNOME library (gnomevfsmm? gnomeuimm? I forget which) to Glib (to do with URIs and VFS). Unfortunately, Fedora decided these were crufty old, deprecated libraries and stopped shipping them - and so stopped shipping referencer too.
I tried building the old srpms, but that leads to a huge number of dependencies, including old gnome stuff that conflicts - iirc. So that wasn't practical, is my vague memory.
I got maybe a quarter to a third of the way of converting Referencer over to the GLib equivalents before giving up, and deciding it was easier just to switch to using Zotero - which is a cross-platform web service + Mozilla XUL based app.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 19:37 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Great example. Referencer is the _only_ application so far that I've been beaten up about in my family technical support role in the transition from a gnome2 to gnome3 desktop experience on Fedora.
When it went missing I given a very specifically told to get that back on the desktop and laptop systems in use. So I resurrected the necessary bits from Fedora packaging git and rebuilt it and its "longer than I really felt comfortable with" set of dependencies for in-family packages. I'm sure as hell not going to offer to maintain this for anyone outside my household.
We are evaluating replacement applications. So far, the user in question hasn't really liked the other options available. If it were a C application, I could probably seriously take a look at porting it. But the fact that it uses c++ bindings, bindings which themselves are not being ported afaik, porting it is a not starter. I'm not going to put myself on the hook for maintaining low level c++ binding as prereq to port this application. It'd be easier to nuke it from orbit and rebuild it as C or vala using the maintained bindings.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 19:46 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
WTF? There are no C++ bindings for GTK3?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 21:05 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
There are. The problem isn't the C++ bindings, it's that some GNOME library got deprecated. Similar, but different functionality, went into a GTK+ library (VFS kind of stuff). The deprecated old GNOME library became difficult to package because of dependencies it seems.
The porting is fairly trivial, but it's not mechanical. Referencer unfortunately uses things like the old URI thingy all over the place. By the 2nd day I got fed up and switched to Zotero.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 6:49 UTC (Fri) by kigurai (guest, #85475) [Link]
Being slightly off topic, but I would also recommend looking at Mendeley. Not FOSS, but totally awesome.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:42 UTC (Thu) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]
Gtkmm3 is available for gtk+3. I had no problems porting my little program (https://github.com/tuna74/TunaAudioExtracter) from gtkmm2.4.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:58 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
was that previously using the libgnomeuimm and libgnomevfsmm and other bindings before the gtk3 port?
If you can point me to any project that has made the jump successfully from using libgnomeuimm to using gtk3mm I'd love to look over their changes as a starting point.
-jef
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 18:18 UTC (Wed) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
Given your own description of the existing parallel installation capabilities your tone doesn't seem warranted. Depending on what you want out of such a feature defining core applications as part of "GNOME 3" doesn't seem to be a complete reach.
I realize that it is frustrating to see something you put loads of work dragged through the mud, but accepting that level doesn't help. It also doesn't mean that everybody criticizing is one of the mud throwers.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 18:31 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
So which distro has GNOME2 (not MATE) and GNOME3?
None? So the distro maintainers are too stupid to be able to do it?
Not geniuses like GNOME developers I guess.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 18:45 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]
So what distro has Firefox 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:10 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
So which version of Firefox removes great chunks of functionality making it essentially useless like GNOME3?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:16 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] So which version of Firefox removes great chunks of functionality making it essentially useless like GNOME3? you got a question and now you feel the need to move the goal posts in order to "prove" to others that you're right, and everybody else is wrong. you are a sad, sad person, and you have my pity.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:27 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
So you disagree that GNOME3 removed significant functionality?
And to prove your point you start calling names?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:32 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
He didn't call you any name.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:00 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
> you are a sad, sad person
Ad hominem.
Seriously, GNOME3 dropped a lot of functionality (some of which it still hasn't gotten back) which is is understandable for .0 release.
Why deny that and call me sad?
What is so hard to understand about users wanting to continue to use GNOME2 until GNOME3 becomes viable?
Sure, I replied in kind to the Company post. So that makes me sad?
GNOME3 is above criticism? Defend GNOME3 at all costs?
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:12 UTC (Wed) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]
You are being intentionally inane just to make people call you inane just so you can say "See! Ad Hominem Attack!"
Lame.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:13 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
I agree it was an ad hominem, I was nitpicking on being called a name.
In any case, you complain about "ad hominem", while continuously showing the similar behaviour (just directed at many people instead of 1). And not just this article. It seems similar to the "graffiti theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_Yo...). If everyone responds nicely and rejects unnice behaviour, it'll likely be a nicer behaviour overall. To be clear: this is not directed at you. In this article alone you'll note that various people respond harshly towards each other. I noticed that corbet mentioned a while ago that he doesn't want moderation except in extreme cases. IMO this badly affects the comment quality.
You'll see that once the sarcasm stops, the chance of being heard vastly improves.
And criticism is very helpful. If everyone says yes, you only need 1 person.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 21:10 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
I don't really consider sarcasm a terrible case of not being nice.
Calling someone a sad person that you pity is more unnice.
But hey, criticism accepted, I will tone it down.
I think the real problem is that team GNOME considers anyone who says something they don't like or don't agree with, or says anything less that total praise for GNOME3 as a troll and not worth listening to.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 7:34 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Sarcasm is a difficult thing to master well without coming off as hostile.
You are coming off as hostile and perhaps a weebit passive aggressive.
Speaking from my own personal battle with the disorder...
Among many strategies I have tried over the years, the one I find most successful in written communication forums is to keep bulk of the sarcastic comments aimed directly at oneself. I believe the term is self-deprecation. You still might not master right off the bat, unless your British, I'm not so I'm still working on it, but it does help take the edge off a bit when others are reading what I write. Instead of coming off as hostile, when making sarcastic jibes at other people, you just come off as a bit odd, muttering about yourself. And maybe this strategy isn't for you. Maybe you need electroshock therapy. I can't tell you want will work for you. Experiment... maybe try that electroshock stuff a couple of times just to be sure its not the right treatment for you.
-jef
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:21 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Unfortunately there's no way I know of on LWN either to send private messages, or to look up a user's "Personal Info" (e.g. I have a link to personal details in http://lwn.net/MyAccount/paulj/PersonalInfo, but I don't think anyone else can see that - least, I get a "not allowed" message if I put other usernames in there). So I have to reply to you publically.
As someone who's been on the receiving end of your sarcasm elsewhere a few times, a good while ago, and not particularly enjoyed it: Bravo for recognising it and trying to address it. I hope I could do the same if/when needs be. ;)
Not sure about the electroshock treatment though. ;)
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 13:41 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
It really depends on the tone. There is a lot of feedback given in various ways. If someone people are very aggressive, it tends not to give a good impression.
I am on various mailing lists, mostly just to look for feedback and spot problems. Sometimes one person saying things is enough, sometimes only when many people say something.
Elsewhere the "faster horse" thing was mentioned. If someone gives feedback it can be various things:
All of that is useful to know, but there is not a one on one relation between this. E.g. a "don't drop fallback mode" criticism might be the result of something else, e.g. a hardware issue. Further, if someone doesn't like a nautilus 3.5.92 or even 3.6.0, it could be either a design issue, maybe not. Often what is expected that some suggestion must be implemented immediately. Not always possible... takes quite a bit of time to figure what the feedback really means. E.g. some stuff in gnome-shell 3.0.0 wasn't working nicely, but actually can be difficult to understand if feedback is in the form of "what are you doing?", "idiots", etc.
That's just interpreting feedback, after that knowing what to do, etc.
Not saying things couldn't/shouldn't be improved, just that the expectations are a bit high.
Note that recently I saw a few designers commenting on usability testing, saying that big usability tests (like Sun did) would be very welcome and is a bit lacking atm.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:58 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Forgot to say: Thanks
I was too aggressive, not only to you. Sorry for that.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:40 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]
3: fucked up autocoplete with "awesome bar"
4: messed up UI 6: fucked up the location bar by making stuff gray 7: broke copy/paste from location bar 8: needs manual fudging for add-ons 9: messed up UI again 10: removed forward arrow 13: added the horrendous "home tab" 15: suddenly auto-updates without asking
... and that was just a quick look.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:58 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
>3: fucked up autocoplete with "awesome bar"
Never had a problem with autocomplete not working.
> 4: messed up UI
Wow, detailed and scathing criticism there.
Maybe I will use that gem on the next GNOME release.
> 6: fucked up the location bar by making stuff gray
Yep, surely that is on par with GNOME3 removing the ability to change the font size, or minimize windows or getting rid of the task bar.
Or the hideous and unchangeable and largely useless black bar across the top of the screen.
> 7: broke copy/paste from location bar
Sounds like a bug more than an intentional design change. Never experienced it here though.
> 8: needs manual fudging for add-ons
Sorry I forgot Gnome extensions are fully supported and always work perfectly.
> 9: messed up UI again
Wow once again, such constructive criticism.
> 10: removed forward arrow
Hmmm... I have a forward arrow here.
> 13: added the horrendous "home tab"
Easily disabled since you know, they actually support user preferences.
> 15: suddenly auto-updates without asking
Which is bad why?
But the GNOME3 defense is now - "Others make crappy software so we can too".
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:12 UTC (Wed) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]
I get it. Firefox is exempt from having to be parallel-installable because you like it the way it is. GNOME isn't because the current version isn't to your liking.
Tip: Do your own distro, it can come with all your favorite versions of all your favorite software!
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:34 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Debian for a time had firefox3 and firefox2 (or "iceweasel", as they call it). Now distros just don't bother with this, but it surely was possible.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:17 UTC (Wed) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> Yep, surely that is on par with GNOME3 removing the ability to change the
font size, or minimize windows or getting rid of the task bar.
1) You can still change the font size
> Sounds like a bug more than an intentional design change. Never experienced it here though.
He probably means the hiding of the "http" and adding it to the pasted url even though it wasn't part of the copied url.
> Easily disabled ...
So now changing options is acceptable? (see the 3 points above).
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 20:40 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
> So now changing options is acceptable? (see the 3 points above).
Seriously? You had to (still do?) need to install a separate tool search through and hack the registry.
Not the same as opening a preferences dialog.
You guys just cannot concede anything. GNOME3.0 was perfect.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 23:55 UTC (Wed) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> Seriously?
Yes.
> You had to (still do?) need to install a separate tool
Yes.
> search through and hack the registry.
No you have to just to click on a few buttons in said tool ... not exactly rocket science.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:02 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] So which distro has GNOME2 (not MATE) and GNOME3? that's an issue you will have to raise with distribution people - I am not one. the libraries are parallel installable; we took great care at bumping everything during the 2 -> 3 cycle. if something got lost in the process, it was a mistake, and I'll gladly take the blame by proxy - as well as accept patches. as I said above, applications do not have parallel installability - but that's something absolutely normal, unless you statically link everything. by the by, we're trying to solve the issue of installing applications in parallel, along with sandboxing and keeping ABI stability in the face of OS updates; it's a large swamp to drain, and something that takes time to implement, and usually gets lots of grief from people droning about the right to choose and the Linux distribution process.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:19 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
> that's an issue you will have to raise with distribution people - I am not one.
Rubbish. You answered the question.
The "apps" (I would argue that nautilus and gnome-panel are not apps but are the desktop) are not parallel installable.
Which was a deliberate choice by you GNOME devs to force the transition to GNOME3. Which is why people are hating on you.
No one cares if the libs are - I want a the login manager to give me the choice of logging into GNOME2 or GNOME3.
I want to use your code! I just want the choice on which version. I don't want the latest buggy incomplete version. I want to chose when I make the transition.
But I know you guys can't understand how people don't think GNOME3 with no taskbar and no font size changing and no minimize button and 3d hw requirements and no themes and gaudy touch friendly widgets isn't the best thing since sliced bread that everyone should immediately want to switch to.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 21, 2012 19:31 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link] The "apps" (I would argue that nautilus and gnome-panel are not apps but are the desktop) are not parallel installable. Jhbuild parallel installs an entire GNOME in your existing distribution. This includes Nautilus and gnome-panel and so on.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:38 UTC (Thu) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019) [Link]
How is this done? I see nothing in the documentation explaining this.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 17:31 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 19:26 UTC (Thu) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019) [Link]
Yea, I found that. I don't see any docs on how to do parallel installs of GNOME.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:13 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
you configure jhbuild to install into a directory tree that is non standard. In the examples in the docs that is /opt/gnome/
jhbuild when used to run gnome-session sets up shell environment variables so gnome components use the files installed via the jhbuild process.
If you want to look at specific environment changes you run:
-jef
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 0:12 UTC (Fri) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019) [Link]
DOH! How did I miss that? Thanks.
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:55 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Be warned that if you go the jhbuild route, it'll suck up loads of time before you actually get anything working. The "GNOME OS" bit is not to replace a distro, but to ensure that "GNOME" behaves like an OS.
Or in other words: ensure that you can easily join development. Be able to provide people with the latest GNOME release as a VM, including all the various system dependencies which are needed by GNOME. Be able to fully test the whole "OS" (meaning GNOME but also the system dependencies).
To answer your question:
What I forgot is that this will still share the "dot" files. We've put a lot of work into supporting the XDG directories (~/.config), which can be changed using environment variables. Quite envious of KDE here (they solved that years ago).
GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode Posted Nov 23, 2012 0:39 UTC (Fri) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019) [Link]
Ok. I've used a tool similar to this in the past when I needed newer GNOME libs so I could build the latest Anjuta on RHEL 4.5. Forget the name of the tool at the moment. I believe it is no longer maintained.
So what is keeping everyone who desires to, from running GNOME 2.x & 3.x side by side?
|
|||||||||||||