After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 723665 - screen: export a root window property with the decoration layout
screen: export a root window property with the decoration layout
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: mutter
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: mutter-maint
mutter-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2014-02-05 12:26 UTC by Giovanni Campagna
Modified: 2014-12-30 03:16 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
screen: export a root window property with the decoration layout (3.92 KB, patch)
2014-02-05 12:26 UTC, Giovanni Campagna 		reviewed Details | Review

Description Giovanni Campagna 2014-02-05 12:26:51 UTC 
This will allow gnome-settings-daemon to pick it up and send it
to GTK+, and will allow to handle classic mode overrides transparently.
Comment 1 Giovanni Campagna 2014-02-05 12:26:54 UTC 
Created attachment 268159 [details] [review]
screen: export a root window property with the decoration layout
Comment 2 Jasper St. Pierre (not reading bugmail) 2014-02-05 15:32:53 UTC 
Review of attachment 268159 [details] [review]:

Wouldn't it be simpler to just add a translation for org.gnome.wm.preferences.button-layout in:

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd-xsettings-manager.c#n358 ?
Comment 3 Giovanni Campagna 2014-02-05 15:38:42 UTC 
No, because it would not handle overrides.
gnome-shell does not use that key, it uses org.gnome.shell.overrides button-layout via an override - and then gnome-shell-extensions stacks another override back to org.gnome.wm.preferences.
Comment 4 Jasper St. Pierre (not reading bugmail) 2014-02-05 15:45:08 UTC 
ugh, right. To be honest, I'd love to see a proper dconf solution for overrides, and then we could stop doing overrides in mutter, and simply pull from the same source as CSD.
Comment 5 Giovanni Campagna 2014-02-05 16:02:57 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> ugh, right. To be honest, I'd love to see a proper dconf solution for
> overrides, and then we could stop doing overrides in mutter, and simply pull
> from the same source as CSD.

The "proper" solution is DCONF_PROFILE, but I'd argue that this way is a lot cleaner and simpler.
Comment 6 Jasper St. Pierre (not reading bugmail) 2014-12-30 03:16:32 UTC 
I don't think we still need this. Gonna bin it for now.