Hi all,
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. So we can avoid doing double work.
I plan to use 1 subpackage per extension of the frippery extension collection, so that people can install only those which they want without automatically getting all of them.
Regards,
Hans
Hans de Goede wrote:
I plan to use 1 subpackage per extension of the frippery extension collection, so that people can install only those which they want without automatically getting all of them.
I'd prefer them to be in one package: they are intended to work together.
I understand that management of extensions has been added to gnome- tweak-tool. That seems like a better approach to controlling extensions than using the package manager.
Ron
Hi Ron, Am 01.06.2011 11:19, schrieb Ron Yorston:
Hans de Goede wrote:
I plan to use 1 subpackage per extension of the frippery extension collection, so that people can install only those which they want without automatically getting all of them.
I'd prefer them to be in one package: they are intended to work together.
I understand that management of extensions has been added to gnome- tweak-tool. That seems like a better approach to controlling extensions than using the package manager.
Ron
As far as gnome-tweak-tool can activate/deactivate certain extensions, I would prefer to have a package. This would be convenient for systems with many users. A global package provides extensions, which are displayed in gnome-tweak-tool, and users can switch them on and off. No need to search for extensions and install them individually.
Mario
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com wrote:
Ron Yorston wrote:
I'd prefer them to be in one package: they are intended to work together.
Except the Shut Down menu extension directly conflicts with the alternative-status-menu extension. Sub-packages are the safest bet. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
+1 for sub packages too.
Tim
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. So we can avoid doing double work.
Did you do this? It's the only thing that makes GNOME shell usable for me. I've been holding off on updating too many machines to F15 until it's properly available; I prefer not to install the package from elsewhere.
I don't even see a review request in bugzilla yet...
On 07/29/2011 07:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. So we can avoid doing double work.
Did you do this? It's the only thing that makes GNOME shell usable for me. I've been holding off on updating too many machines to F15 until it's properly available; I prefer not to install the package from elsewhere.
I don't even see a review request in bugzilla yet...
There does exit an [1] rpm and an srpm [2] here by the do we have guidelines on how to package additional extensions I guess official and unofficial ones?
1. ftp://ftp.tigress.co.uk/fedora/15/tigress-utils/x86_64/gnome-shell-frippery-0.2.3-1.noarch.rpm 2. ftp://ftp.tigress.co.uk/fedora/15/tigress-utils/SRPMS/gnome-shell-frippery-0.2.3-1.src.rpm
JBG
On 07/29/2011 01:57 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
There does exit an [1] rpm and an srpm [2] here by the do we have guidelines on how to package additional extensions I guess official and unofficial ones?
The only one we have is at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28g...
Rahul
Hi,
On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. So we can avoid doing double work.
Did you do this? It's the only thing that makes GNOME shell usable for me. I've been holding off on updating too many machines to F15 until it's properly available; I prefer not to install the package from elsewhere.
I don't even see a review request in bugzilla yet...
I'm afraid I never got around to it, I still intend to do it, but likely not before LinuxCon Vancouver, so if anyone wants to beat me to the punch that would make me very happy :)
I'll gladly review it once packaged.
As discussed before I think it would be best to package this with subpackages with each containing one of the frippery extenstions, and then have the main package be an empty package which just requires all the others, so that people who want to can easily install the entire bundle.
Regards,
Hans
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. So we can avoid doing double work.
Did you do this? It's the only thing that makes GNOME shell usable for me. I've been holding off on updating too many machines to F15 until it's properly available; I prefer not to install the package from elsewhere.
I don't even see a review request in bugzilla yet...
I'm afraid I never got around to it, I still intend to do it, but likely not before LinuxCon Vancouver, so if anyone wants to beat me to the punch that would make me very happy :)
I'll gladly review it once packaged.
As discussed before I think it would be best to package this with subpackages with each containing one of the frippery extenstions, and then have the main package be an empty package which just requires all the others, so that people who want to can easily install the entire bundle.
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200 drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote: ...
Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
[citation needed]
--Stijn
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Stijn Hoop stijn@sandcat.nl wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200 drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote: ...
Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
[citation needed]
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 11:15 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
[citation needed]
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html
Seriously, who cares? Upstream are clearly on crack these days anyway.
The best way to discourage people from shipping and installing 'extensions' is to make the basic user interface not suck in the first place. They failed at that.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:28, David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 11:15 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
[citation needed]
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html
Seriously, who cares? Upstream are clearly on crack these days anyway.
The best way to discourage people from shipping and installing 'extensions' is to make the basic user interface not suck in the first place. They failed at that.
Please refrain from insults.
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org and just point users to that insteand of packaging it?
JBG
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org and just point users to that insteand of packaging it?
What's the point other then duplicated effort?
On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"johannbg@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org and just point users to that insteand of packaging it?
What's the point other then duplicated effort?
extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org would contain the "unofficial" ones ...
JBG
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"johannbg@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org and just point users to that insteand of packaging it?
What's the point other then duplicated effort?
extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org would contain the "unofficial" ones ...
There is no such thing, every non mallware extension should be in extensions.gnome.org (same as addons.mozilla.org).
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31:35AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"johannbg@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org and just point users to that insteand of packaging it?
What's the point other then duplicated effort?
extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org would contain the "unofficial" ones ...
There is no such thing, every non mallware extension should be in extensions.gnome.org (same as addons.mozilla.org).
Same as... Nazwa : mozilla-adblockplus Architektura : noarch Wersja : 1.3.8 Wydanie : 1.fc15
I would strongly prefer third parties not to reinvent whole packaging and repositories concept. Some companies grasp it (I have yum repos provided for Google Earth and Talk Plugin, Dell BIOSes and firmwares, Adobe Flash and Air, Virtualbox...).
Actually, if addons.m.o and extensions.g.o provided yum.repo file, my point would be moot.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:36:50 +0200 Tomasz Torcz tomek@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
I would strongly prefer third parties not to reinvent whole packaging and repositories concept. Some companies grasp it (I have yum repos provided for Google Earth and Talk Plugin, Dell BIOSes and firmwares, Adobe Flash and Air, Virtualbox...).
This, exactly.
Actually, if addons.m.o and extensions.g.o provided yum.repo file, my point would be moot.
That would be very nice indeed, and might even be possible to create given that the code for AMO is open (https://github.com/jbalogh/zamboni)
Hopefully extensions.gnome.org will at least re-use some of that code instead of doing it yet another way again...
--Stijn
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 10:57 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click "install" to install an extension. Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
So, just so I understand, the requirement/assumption is that all machines will be online and pulling bits down directly from GNOME? That won't map at all to enterprise or non-fully connected environments. It needs to be possible to install/provision a system with this kind of functionality because users are going to want to get these extensions.
David: on the subject of your followup...my advice, by the way, is that life is too short to continue to try to explain why GNOME Shell is unusable for folks like you and I. I'd just switch to XFCE and be done with it. My machines are a lot happier for having made the switch :)
Jon.
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 02:23 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
David: on the subject of your followup...my advice, by the way, is that life is too short to continue to try to explain why GNOME Shell is unusable for folks like you and I. I'd just switch to XFCE and be done with it. My machines are a lot happier for having made the switch :)
I'm not really interested in explaining why GNOME Shell is unusable. It's not about explanations anyway; they *want* it to be unusable¹.
Besides, I'm content enough with GNOME Shell as long as we have gnome-shell-frippery. My only issue right now is that it's not packaged in a Fedora repository, so I don't have the expectation that it'll be kept up to date and in sync with Fedora's gnome-shell, and that it'll be updated when I connect to a decent wired network and run 'yum update'.
That is the subject of this thread; I'm not interested in the meta-discussion, which is why I was so short in response to the "upstream wants..." interjection.
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 02:23 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
So, just so I understand, the requirement/assumption is that all machines will be online and pulling bits down directly from GNOME? That won't map at all to enterprise or non-fully connected environments. It needs to be possible to install/provision a system with this kind of functionality because users are going to want to get these extensions.
David: on the subject of your followup...my advice, by the way, is that life is too short to continue to try to explain why GNOME Shell is unusable for folks like you and I. I'd just switch to XFCE and be done with it. My machines are a lot happier for having made the switch :)
+1. There are also some very nice dock-programs available which make xfce even more easy to use.
definitely recommended rather than tilting at windmills with gnome3.
-sv
-
David Woodhouse -
drago01 -
Hans de Goede -
Jason D. Clinton -
Jon Masters -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Mario Blättermann -
Michael Cronenworth -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ron Yorston -
Seth Vidal -
Stijn Hoop -
Tim Lauridsen -
Tomasz Torcz