- From: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
- To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: gnome-multi-term
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:21:04 +0000
> From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
> Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:41:21 -0500
michael said, and havoc replied:
> > Also - we need a decision on this issue - if we go with your
> > terminal - which seems ok as a scheme, I'd like to see it in
> > gnome-core under eclectic maintainership, and get Gediminas working
> > with you instead of against you.
> I hope there's no working against going on. I don't consider trying
> multiple approaches at once to be a bad thing or against anyone. I
> would encourage anyone to fix gnome-terminal. And I would encourage
> people who start full rewrites not to commit the initial broken state
> into CVS as the default implementation.
Please, *please* bear in mind that the terminal is an absolute
stopper for accessibility, so we need to try for as much
careful coordination and continuity as possible.
Marc has done some really great work in making libzvt accessible,
it was no small task... so we need to ensure that whatever we call
gnome-terminal uses libzvt sanely and that the rest of the terminal
(menus, both drop-down and popup, font selector, etc.) are fully
accessible. At this date the best way to do this is to use
stock GTK+ widgets for all, and explicitly add AtkRelation info
where needed (for instance, where widgets in the font selector
are "controllers" for one another).
There are some folks as Wipro who are, to my understanding,
planning to do some work in this respect but in order to
be effective for 2.0 they need to know what the codebase is;
in other words it would be tragic of they patched the terminal
menus, etc. for accessibility only to find that the existing
Please let us know how we can best coordinate these changes;
personally I am unclear as to why we want to make major
changes to gnome-terminal that don't simplify accessibility
at this late date. An accessible terminal is especially important
since, until our GNOME GUI apps get fully ported and have
ATK support for extra-GTK+ widgets, command line UIs offer the
only accessible applications for some users.
> If we go profterm then it will be renamed to gnome-terminal. I tend to
> agree with the "no need to copy it into gnome-core" viewpoint but this
> is a detail.
> Message: 5
> To: Narayana Pattipati <narayana pattipati wipro com>
> Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Need clarification about font-selection functionality in Gnome-Terminal
> From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
> Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:42:51 -0500
> Narayana Pattipati <narayana pattipati wipro com> writes:
> > I was looking at the recent code changes in Gnome-Terminal application,
> > and
> > it seems that Font-Selection functionality under Preferences is not
> > there now.
> > The Font-Selection button is removed and I see 'fixed' in the Font
> > Entry.
> > Does it mean the font is hard-coaded with a fixed font and user is not
> > provided with
> > Font-Selection functionality.?
> It means you currently have to type in a font name.
> The problem is that we need a font selector for X fonts, see the
> thread titled "gnome-multi-term"
> Message: 6
> Subject: Re: Deprecated calls in libzvt
> From: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>
> To: Deepa <deepa chacko wipro com>
> Cc: desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
> Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:50:09 -0500
> On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 11:18, Deepa wrote:
> > Jacob,
> > libzvt Makefile did not have -Wall by default. Now, I have compiled with -Wall and
> > all of the deprecated flags defined. I was not able to find replacement for these 2
> > deprecated calls:
> the makefile shouldn't have -Wall as it's a gcc flag. i have it set in
> my CFLAGS such that everything i built automagically gets it.
> > * gdk_input_add() - This in turn calls gdk_input_add_full() which is also
> > deprecated. I was not able to find a replacement for this as yet.
> if you look at the implementation of gdk_input_add_full() you will see
> it calls g_io_add_watch_full() which is what you will want to use.
> > * gdk_x11_font_get_xfont() - You suggested replacing GDK_FONT_XFONT with this call.
> > But gdk_x11_font_get_xfont() is also deprecated. I could not find any replacement
> > for this too.
> right, but you need to use GdkFont rather than PangoFont. there is no
> getting around this. I just recommended using it so you didn't have to
> use the deprecated calls in gdkx.h but i didn't see that
> gdk_x11_font_get_xfont() was in there. so just ignore that bit of my
> previous mail.
> "In fact, can you imagine anything more terrifying than a zombie clown?"
> -- moby
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> End of desktop-devel-list Digest
] [Thread Prev