GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 642068
info: Add panel chooser, graphics tab
Last modified: 2011-02-14 22:22:06 UTC
This is work towards implementing http://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/SystemInformation Implemented in this patch is some cleanup and parts of the Graphics tab.
*** Bug 642069 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 180624 [details] [review] graphics tab
Review of attachment 180624 [details] [review]: ::: panels/info/cc-info-panel.c @@ +357,1 @@ + is_accelerated_binary = g_build_filename (LIBEXECDIR, "gnome-session-is-accelerated", NULL); Again, a dependency on gnome-session. @@ +757,3 @@ + widget = WID (self->priv->builder, "graphics_fallback_switch_box"); + sw = GTK_SWITCH (gtk_switch_new ()); + GtkWidget *widget; See below. @@ +874,3 @@ + self->priv->builder = gtk_builder_new (); + + gnome-control-center doesn't depend on gnome-session, so you'll either need to do everything at the gsettings-desktop-schemas level, or just use D-Bus to ask for the session name (and save it).
(In reply to comment #3) > Review of attachment 180624 [details] [review]: > > ::: panels/info/cc-info-panel.c > @@ +357,1 @@ > + is_accelerated_binary = g_build_filename (LIBEXECDIR, > "gnome-session-is-accelerated", NULL); > > Again, a dependency on gnome-session. "again"? > gnome-control-center doesn't depend on gnome-session, so you'll either need to > do everything at the gsettings-desktop-schemas level, or just use D-Bus to ask > for the session name (and save it). Umm...why? In what world does it make sense to run gnome-control-center outside of GNOME? And even if it did, how would using DBus solve anything?
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Review of attachment 180624 [details] [review] [details]: > > > > ::: panels/info/cc-info-panel.c > > @@ +357,1 @@ > > + is_accelerated_binary = g_build_filename (LIBEXECDIR, > > "gnome-session-is-accelerated", NULL); > > > > Again, a dependency on gnome-session. > > "again"? You need to read the reviews backwards, just like I read your code ;) > > gnome-control-center doesn't depend on gnome-session, so you'll either need to > > do everything at the gsettings-desktop-schemas level, or just use D-Bus to ask > > for the session name (and save it). > > Umm...why? In what world does it make sense to run gnome-control-center > outside of GNOME? And even if it did, how would using DBus solve anything? There's just one case really, you're running GNOME without gnome-session (say, getting systemd's session supported started). If you're going to add a hard dependency on gnome-session (which is what trying to load the setting is), then you need a pkg-config file in gnome-session, and patch gnome-control-center to hard require it. I don't trust package maintainers to make the "requires" changes if we don't change the build dependencies.
(In reply to comment #5) > You need to read the reviews backwards, just like I read your code ;) Fair enough! > There's just one case really, you're running GNOME without gnome-session (say, > getting systemd's session supported started). But this isn't happening for 3.0, clearly. > If you're going to add a hard dependency on gnome-session (which is what trying > to load the setting is), Well...it doesn't crash, but yes. > I don't trust package maintainers to make the "requires" changes if we don't > change the build dependencies. A reasonable point, though I'm not sure if gnome-session installing a .pc file is right. Maybe. I guess the thing I don't like about it is that pkg-config doesn't have a reasonable way to say "don't use this it's private".
(In reply to comment #6) <snip> > > If you're going to add a hard dependency on gnome-session (which is what trying > > to load the setting is), > > Well...it doesn't crash, but yes. Loading a GSettings which isn't installed will result in an abort(). So it is a hard dependency. > > I don't trust package maintainers to make the "requires" changes if we don't > > change the build dependencies. > > A reasonable point, though I'm not sure if gnome-session installing a .pc file > is right. Maybe. I guess the thing I don't like about it is that pkg-config > doesn't have a reasonable way to say "don't use this it's private". The pkg-config can contain very little information. Though it would probably be of interest for it to contain libexecdir, so that you could use that to load the "graphics is accelerated" test.
Created attachment 180683 [details] [review] graphics