On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Um. What? Apart from the rude top-posting, I don't see how any of the
> screed above relates to the discussion Olav and I were having at all.
This thread is rapidly becoming the 'crap, we don't know where to put
this' dumping ground' ;)
-
On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 07:14 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> While this has been amusing, a lot of useful detail may be lost in the
> furor. There are some good philosophy questions about what GUI's
> should support for replacing command line tools (the gnome
> installation tool), hooks for gettin
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:33:09PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 05:33 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:50:11PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Oh, hey, look. That place is rapidly becoming the 'crap, we don't know
> > > where to put this' dumpin
On 17.11.2013 14:14, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
While this has been amusing, a lot of useful detail may be lost in the
furor. There are some good philosophy questions about what GUI's
should support for replacing command line tools (the gnome
...
So step back, and let's think "how can we make
On 17 November 2013 04:33, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:50:11PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Oh, hey, look. That place is rapidly becoming the 'crap, we don't know
>> where to put this' dumping ground for GNOME 3, isn't it?
>
> It has been there since 3.0 AFAIK, so rapidly
While this has been amusing, a lot of useful detail may be lost in the
furor. There are some good philosophy questions about what GUI's
should support for replacing command line tools (the gnome
installation tool), hooks for getting command line tools to pop up as
GUI icons and behavior correctly,
On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 05:33 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:50:11PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Oh, hey, look. That place is rapidly becoming the 'crap, we don't know
> > where to put this' dumping ground for GNOME 3, isn't it?
>
> It has been there since 3.0 AFAIK, s
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:50:11PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Oh, hey, look. That place is rapidly becoming the 'crap, we don't know
> where to put this' dumping ground for GNOME 3, isn't it?
It has been there since 3.0 AFAIK, so rapidly becoming is incorrect.
Anyway, calling design decision
On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 10:44 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 02:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> As for setting the preferred terminal emulator, the user's desktop's system
> >> settings should include that. (KDE System
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:51:22PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> GNOME has a few 'preferred apps' settings left but I don't think they're
> exposed in the UI anywhere. There are the following dconf keys:
Settings → Details → Default applications
No terminal option though.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 02:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> As for setting the preferred terminal emulator, the user's desktop's system
>> settings should include that. (KDE System Settings does under "Workspace
>> Appearance and Behavior"
On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 02:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> As for setting the preferred terminal emulator, the user's desktop's system
> settings should include that. (KDE System Settings does under "Workspace
> Appearance and Behavior" / "Default Components".)
But the point is that this is not,
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Um. You're not reading carefully enough. The question was not 'is there
> a way to indicate this app should be launched in a terminal'. It was
> 'does any XDG specification define a way for the user to indicate their
> preferred terminal emulator app, and a method for launc
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 23:25 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > - [Petr Pisar wrote:] -
> >> BTW, is there an XDG way how to spawn an user-preferred terminal emulator
> >> (and and application inside)?
> > No.
>
> Wrong!
>
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entr
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> For once I totally agree with you. xdg badly needs an indirection diet
For what it's worth, for this use case, the Terminal=true .desktop file
entry just works! Sure, it won't let you specify custom arguments, but
something like the proposed xdg-terminal that can spawn a
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> - [Petr Pisar wrote:] -
>> BTW, is there an XDG way how to spawn an user-preferred terminal emulator
>> (and and application inside)?
> No.
Wrong!
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s05.html#key-terminal
Any interactive terminal app tha
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> What I don't like is the situation that somebody uses a graphical tool to
> install "software", and the installed stuff doesn't show up anywhere in
> the graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system), but is only
> listed as installed. That's the "WTF?" scenario
Ian Malone wrote:
> Installer offering to run something for you is something that's always
> irritated me ("you've installed this! do you want to run it now?!"). I
> can live with it if it's useful for the majority of people, but I
> don't see why it's obvious that this "should" happen.
For what i
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013, Ian Malone wrote:
I think it's perfectly reasonable that there could be a
GUI program can install components and terminal commands. After all we
can start GUI programs from the command line.
I think everyone agrees with this. Indeed, we already have yumex, which is not
g
No.
- Original Message -
> On 2013-11-11, Branislav Blaskovic wrote:
> > Of course there have to be mentioned that the app is made for
> > terminal.
> >
> BTW, is there an XDG way how to spawn an user-preferred terminal emulator
> (and and application inside)?
>
> -- Petr
>
> --
> devel
On 2013-11-11, Branislav Blaskovic wrote:
> Of course there have to be mentioned that the app is made for
> terminal.
>
BTW, is there an XDG way how to spawn an user-preferred terminal emulator
(and and application inside)?
-- Petr
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://adm
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:01:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:12:34 +0100, Branislav Blaskovic wrote:
>
> > yes, you are right with ImageMagic - no doubt. I don't want to support the
> > idea
> > of this thread but there are many of apps which are made for terminal bu
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:12:34 +0100, Branislav Blaskovic wrote:
> yes, you are right with ImageMagic - no doubt. I don't want to support the
> idea
> of this thread but there are many of apps which are made for terminal but
> users
> are running them mostly without arguments. For example - irssi,
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 21:56:57 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 10 November 2013 20:55, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:02:46 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> >
> >> You are arguing that system management should only be possible through
> >> a GUI where the affected components are themselv
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:06:18PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:35:41 +, Ian Malone wrote:
>
> > > Please don't let it install applications, which cannot be started via the
> > > graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system or a list of
> > > installed App
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 01:40 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 10.11.2013 01:35, schrieb Les Howell:
> > On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 22:47 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> The core principle of the installer is th
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The updater could continue to cover *all* packages as registered in the
> RPM database.
>
It already does
Btw, currently, when I run "gnome-software" and click "Updates", it
> claims "Software is up to date", but Yum finds updates:
>
>
Le Dim 10 novembre 2013 22:22, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> On Fri, 08.11.13 17:22, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
>
>> > > GNOME supports the Terminal key just fine. But just having your
>> > > commandd run in a terminal is not quite enough to give it an
>> > > identity as a separate appl
On 10 November 2013 20:55, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:02:46 +, Ian Malone wrote:
>
>> You are arguing that system management should only be possible through
>> a GUI where the affected components are themselves graphical.
>
> No, not at all.
>
>> Please take some time to
On Fri, 08.11.13 17:22, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
> > > GNOME supports the Terminal key just fine. But just having your
> > > commandd run in a terminal is not quite enough to give it an
> > > identity as a separate application - to the rest of the system it
> > > will appear just as a
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:02:46 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> You are arguing that system management should only be possible through
> a GUI where the affected components are themselves graphical.
No, not at all.
> Please take some time to reflect on how ridiculous that is.
http://fedoraproject.org/c
On 10 November 2013 15:06, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:35:41 +, Ian Malone wrote:
>
>> > Please don't let it install applications, which cannot be started via the
>> > graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system or a list of
>> > installed Applications). Users,
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:35:41 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> > Please don't let it install applications, which cannot be started via the
> > graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system or a list of
> > installed Applications). Users, who install software with the help of a
> > graphical pro
On 9 November 2013 21:47, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
>> level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something is
>> an appli
Am 10.11.2013 01:35, schrieb Les Howell:
> On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 22:47 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
>>> level and not a package level.
On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 22:47 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
> > level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something
>
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
> level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something is
> an application
> is by looking for a .desktop file. So in theory
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> But they hardcode the terminal application to gnome-terminal, which is
>> unacceptable!
>
> Just don't use GNOME? More seriously, this is the bug with the
> instructions on how to write the "terminal chooser" patch for glib:
> https://bug
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 00:58:05 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 14:06 +0200, Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
> >> 2013/11/7 Christian Schaller :
> >> > Ok, so I guess the solution would be for the launcher to do
> >> > something like this:
> >> >
> >> > gnome-
- Original Message -
> But they hardcode the terminal application to gnome-terminal, which is
> unacceptable!
Just don't use GNOME? More seriously, this is the bug with the instructions
on how to write the "terminal chooser" patch for glib:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62794
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 14:06 +0200, Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
>> 2013/11/7 Christian Schaller :
>> > Ok, so I guess the solution would be for the launcher to do something
>> > like this:
>> >
>> > gnome-terminal --geometry 80x37 --disable-factory --role=bitchx
>> > --class=bi
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 14:06 +0200, Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
> 2013/11/7 Christian Schaller :
> > Ok, so I guess the solution would be for the launcher to do something like
> > this:
> >
> > gnome-terminal --geometry 80x37 --disable-factory --role=bitchx
> > --class=bitchx --name "bitchX IRC" --tit
Hi
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 8 November 2013 00:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > It would be awfully convenient to have a single place for all these
> related tasks.
>
> Trying to design a GUI for all users who would find something
> convenient isn't possible. Soon
On 8 November 2013 00:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> HI
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> Honestly, I don't think Software is really aimed at your use case, and
>> you may as well just keep using yum. It's meant to be a cool way to find
>> neat software, not a compre
2013/11/7 Christian Schaller :
> Ok, so I guess the solution would be for the launcher to do something like
> this:
>
> gnome-terminal --geometry 80x37 --disable-factory --role=bitchx
> --class=bitchx --name "bitchX IRC" --title "BitchX IRC"
>
Isn't the Terminal attribute of desktop files[1] sup
On 8 November 2013 00:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> It would be awfully convenient to have a single place for all these related
> tasks.
Trying to design a GUI for all users who would find something
convenient isn't possible. Sooner or later you have to limit scope of
you get a huge feature-creep
HI
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Honestly, I don't think Software is really aimed at your use case, and
> you may as well just keep using yum. It's meant to be a cool way to find
> neat software, not a comprehensive package catalog.
>
Part of the problem that I have
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 16:37 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
> Ok, so I guess the solution would be for the launcher to do something like
> this:
>
> gnome-terminal --geometry 80x37 --disable-factory --role=bitchx
> --class=bitchx --name "bitchX IRC" --title "BitchX IRC"
>
> That said Ray menti
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 13:09 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Florian Müllner
> wrote:
>
>
> I guess the main obstacle here is that there isn't really a
> good
> criterion which is as clear-cut as "installs a (non-N
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> On 7 Nov 2013 17:13, "Richard Vickery" wrote
>
> > Is / was a rather political decision to make BitchX unavailable through
> this app-market / Software GUI thing?
>
> How do you launch bitchx from gnome-shell? If it's just a random binary
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
> Anyway, as Richard says, we should have a proper design discussion around
> this and not just add a ton of .desktop files without thinking through the
> presentation
> and how it will work. But feel free to file some bug reports to kic
l Message -
From: "Richard Hughes"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:02:07 PM
Subject: Re: unaccessability
On 7 Nov 2013 17:13, "Richard Vickery" < richard.vicker...@gmail.com > wrote
> Is / was a rather
On 7 Nov 2013 17:13, "Richard Vickery" wrote
> Is / was a rather political decision to make BitchX unavailable through
this app-market / Software GUI thing?
How do you launch bitchx from gnome-shell? If it's just a random binary
without any desktop or appdata file, it isn't an application as far
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
> Maybe long term we want to filter terminal applications into a separate
> 'tab' or similar, but regardless of
> long term presentation if you maintain a package with a terminal
> application and want it to show up in the installer
Richard Vickery (richard.vicker...@gmail.com) said:
> A thought as we move into the future: if we continue with the installer,
> end users may one day forget about the yum command and all the awesome
> packages out there; they may forget about the command line altogether.
We've been shipping a gr
tion
and want it to show up in the installer
the solution is to create a .desktop file and a appdata file for it.
Christian
- Original Message -
> From: "Rahul Sundaram"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 20
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
> > I guess the main obstacle here is that there isn't really a good
> > criterion which is as clear-cut as "installs a (non-NoDisplay)
> > .desktop file" => "this is a user-visible gui application" for gui
> > applications - mutt certainly is a user appli
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Florian Müllner wrote:
>
> I guess the main obstacle here is that there isn't really a good
> criterion which is as clear-cut as "installs a (non-NoDisplay)
> .desktop file" => "this is a user-visible gui application" for gui
> applications - mutt certainly is
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
>> level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something
>> is an
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Perhaps instead of ignoring them entirely, you can just sort the results or
> having
> a secondary view "Click here for command line applications that match your
> search
> results" etc can be considered.
I guess the main obstacle here is
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
> level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something
> is an application
> is by looking for a .desktop file. So in theory you
ssage -
From: "Richard Vickery"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
, "Community support for Fedora users"
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:13:25 PM
Subject: unaccessability
Is / was a rather political decision to make BitchX unavailable through th
It's only for GUI applications, which BitchX isn't, and if it has
become a GUI application in the ten years since I last looked at it,
it's probably lacking AppData files.
- Original Message -
> Is / was a rather political decision to make BitchX unavailable through
> this app-market / Sof
Is / was a rather political decision to make BitchX unavailable through
this app-market / Software GUI thing? Since having to yum install it, I am
beginning to have a negative feeling toward the app market idea; the
thought being: what else is being left out?
Regards,
Richard
--
devel mailing lis
64 matches
Mail list logo
