So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Or will there just be a bling repo for fc6 just like fc5?
(oh the irony of updating my laptop to fc6t2 to get some bling because the fc5 bling repo hadn't been updated, only to get no bling on fc6t2 and then have the fc5 bling repo updated a day later!)
Thanks,
tjb
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
Bill
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 16:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
Also, i think metacity bling was disabled because it linking to libgl caused all sorts of bad issues with selinux.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc alexl@redhat.com alla@lysator.liu.se He's a scarfaced overambitious card sharp on the wrong side of the law. She's a beautiful out-of-work angel with someone else's memories. They fight crime!
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 10:27 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Also, i think metacity bling was disabled because it linking to libgl caused all sorts of bad issues with selinux.
No, the execmem problem with libGL was fixed in libGL. Otherwise, the problem would still exist for any GL using applications
Jeremy
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 16:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
Bill
So when you say going forward, do you mean for the fc6 time frame, or is the composite manager going to be dropped from metacity?
Compiz has spectacular bling but lacks certain basic window manager features (like toggleable vertical and horizontal maximize) that I had in sawfish, lost in metacity for a while but just got back in fc5, and now will lose again in compiz. Metacity has good bling and solid window manager functions (and a killer close window animation.)
So if I have to rebuild metacity myself, how do I re-enable compositing? I looked at the spec and I can't see where it explicitly disables it and the configure script seems to assume that it's on (only --disable-composite seems to be valid.)
Thanks,
tjb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas J. Baker wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 16:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
Bill
So when you say going forward, do you mean for the fc6 time frame, or is the composite manager going to be dropped from metacity?
Compiz has spectacular bling but lacks certain basic window manager features (like toggleable vertical and horizontal maximize) that I had in sawfish, lost in metacity for a while but just got back in fc5, and now will lose again in compiz. Metacity has good bling and solid window manager functions (and a killer close window animation.)
This is simply not true. Both metacity and compiz have toggleable horizontal and vertical maximize, you just have to set the keybindings. Metacity has had it since before FC5, although I'm not sure exactly when. Enabling it in compiz requires manually setting a gconf entry to the desired keybinding, but it is definitely there. Set the keys:
/apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/toggle_window_maximized_key /apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/toggle_window_maximized_vertically_key /apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/toggle_window_maximized_horizontally_key
So if I have to rebuild metacity myself, how do I re-enable compositing? I looked at the spec and I can't see where it explicitly disables it and the configure script seems to assume that it's on (only --disable-composite seems to be valid.)
Thanks,
tjb
- -- Shahms E. King shahms@shahms.com Multnomah ESD
Public Key: http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/~sking/shahms.asc Fingerprint: 1612 054B CE92 8770 F1EA AB1B FEAB 3636 45B2 D75B
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 07:50 -0700, Shahms King wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas J. Baker wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 16:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
Bill
So when you say going forward, do you mean for the fc6 time frame, or is the composite manager going to be dropped from metacity?
Compiz has spectacular bling but lacks certain basic window manager features (like toggleable vertical and horizontal maximize) that I had in sawfish, lost in metacity for a while but just got back in fc5, and now will lose again in compiz. Metacity has good bling and solid window manager functions (and a killer close window animation.)
This is simply not true. Both metacity and compiz have toggleable horizontal and vertical maximize, you just have to set the keybindings. Metacity has had it since before FC5, although I'm not sure exactly
Sure it may have been fc4 but that was still a long time (years) without it.
when. Enabling it in compiz requires manually setting a gconf entry to the desired keybinding, but it is definitely there. Set the keys:
/apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/toggle_window_maximized_key /apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/toggle_window_maximized_vertically_key /apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/toggle_window_maximized_horizontally_key
That's excellent news. I know early versions of compiz didn't have this. (At least the ubuntu xgl builds from quinnstorm.)
So the next question becomes, is the keyboard shortcuts pref going to propagate settings to both compiz and metacity now? (It may already but I haven't been able to run compiz long enough to know. I actually had to remove compiz from my system because everytime I tried to disable desktop effects, it locked up my machine. The only way to get back to metacity was to remove compiz. I need to debug that more now that I know it's the one true path.)
tjb
Thomas J. Baker wrote:
So if I have to rebuild metacity myself, how do I re-enable compositing? I looked at the spec and I can't see where it explicitly disables it and the configure script seems to assume that it's on (only --disable-composite seems to be valid.)
No, it is disabled by default in upstream metacity. To turn it on pass --enable-compositor (note -tor, not -te). You will need the libcm library as well, either checked out of GNOME cvs or the tarball from the last bling-build of metacity. The last tarball is also available here:
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/libcm-0.0.22.tar.gz
Soren
Soeren Sandmann wrote:
Thomas J. Baker wrote:
So if I have to rebuild metacity myself, how do I re-enable compositing? I looked at the spec and I can't see where it explicitly disables it and the configure script seems to assume that it's on (only --disable-composite seems to be valid.)
No, it is disabled by default in upstream metacity.
reason?
To turn it on pass --enable-compositor (note -tor, not -te). You will need the libcm library as well, either checked out of GNOME cvs or the tarball from the last bling-build of metacity. The last tarball is also available here:
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/libcm-0.0.22.tar.gz
Soren
dragoran wrote:
No, it is disabled by default in upstream metacity.
reason?
Well, for a long while it required a bleeding edge X server and libraries (in some cases a *patched* X server) to work, so it would only have worked for people willing to compile their own X server. That's why it wasn't compiled in by default.
And now compiz is considered the way forward ...
Soren
Soeren Sandmann wrote:
dragoran wrote:
No, it is disabled by default in upstream metacity.
reason?
Well, for a long while it required a bleeding edge X server and libraries (in some cases a *patched* X server) to work, so it would only have worked for people willing to compile their own X server. That's why it wasn't compiled in by default.
And now compiz is considered the way forward ...
Soren
so this means that work on it will stop? or will it return in gnome 2.18? fedora already has the required X server + libs so why can't it be left enabled in FC6 (disabled in gconf) ? if someone wants to use it he/she can enable it but know we have to recompile metacity (and this can't be done in extras because it would replace a core package)
Hi,
so this means that work on it will stop? or will it return in gnome 2.18? fedora already has the required X server + libs so why can't it be left enabled in FC6 (disabled in gconf) ? if someone wants to use it he/she can enable it but know we have to recompile metacity (and this can't be done in extras because it would replace a core package)
Well, if someone wants to do it for extras, they could take the same approach we took before FC5 and create a "spififity" package instead (that doesn't install any of the support files, adds a Requires: metacity, and renames the installed binary to /usr/bin/spififity).
--Ray
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 16:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
So when you say going forward, do you mean for the fc6 time frame, or is the composite manager going to be dropped from metacity?
The idea is that compiz is the WM for composited desktops. Work is being done to get things more seamless for switching between them w.r.t. focus, keybindings, etc.
Bill
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas J. Baker (tjb@unh.edu) said:
So what's the thinking on fc6 bling? Why was composite compiled out of metacity as opposed to just using the gconf key? Is it going to be compiz for bling and metacity for no bling? (That's a sad christmas for me because compiz is too buggy compared to metacity on my ATI R250 laptop).
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
why? I is there any reason to turn it off? if someone wants it it can be enabled using gconf (off by default), so why isn't it compiled in?
Bill
dragoran (dragoran@feuerpokemon.de) said:
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
why? I is there any reason to turn it off? if someone wants it it can be enabled using gconf (off by default), so why isn't it compiled in?
Because having two separate upstream efforts on compositing WMs, effects, etc. was deemed to be wasteful; better to have a single compositing WM and work on making the transition as seamless as possible.
Bill
Bill Nottingham wrote:
dragoran (dragoran@feuerpokemon.de) said:
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
why? I is there any reason to turn it off? if someone wants it it can be enabled using gconf (off by default), so why isn't it compiled in?
Because having two separate upstream efforts on compositing WMs, effects, etc. was deemed to be wasteful; better to have a single compositing WM and work on making the transition as seamless as possible.
Bill
ok... does compiz still forces me to have 4 virtual desktops? I prefer having 2 (thats why I hatet compiz last time I tryed it using XGL), and some would perfer having more than 4 (which was not supported last time when I tyred it)
dragoran wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
dragoran (dragoran@feuerpokemon.de) said:
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
why? I is there any reason to turn it off? if someone wants it it can be enabled using gconf (off by default), so why isn't it compiled in?
Because having two separate upstream efforts on compositing WMs, effects, etc. was deemed to be wasteful; better to have a single compositing WM and work on making the transition as seamless as possible.
Bill
ok... does compiz still forces me to have 4 virtual desktops? I prefer having 2 (thats why I hatet compiz last time I tryed it using XGL), and some would perfer having more than 4 (which was not supported last time when I tyred it)
It definitely supports more than 4. If it doesn't support fewer that can be considered a bug...
- ajax
Adam Jackson wrote:
dragoran wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
dragoran (dragoran@feuerpokemon.de) said:
Yes, that's the plan going forward.
why? I is there any reason to turn it off? if someone wants it it can be enabled using gconf (off by default), so why isn't it compiled in?
Because having two separate upstream efforts on compositing WMs, effects, etc. was deemed to be wasteful; better to have a single compositing WM and work on making the transition as seamless as possible.
Bill
ok... does compiz still forces me to have 4 virtual desktops? I prefer having 2 (thats why I hatet compiz last time I tryed it using XGL), and some would perfer having more than 4 (which was not supported last time when I tyred it)
It definitely supports more than 4. If it doesn't support fewer that can be considered a bug...
- ajax
ok should I fill this in redhats bugzilla or is there a upstream one?
-
Adam Jackson -
Alexander Larsson -
Bill Nottingham -
dragoran -
Jeremy Katz -
Ray Strode -
Shahms King -
Soren Pedersen -
Thomas J. Baker