So, do you think this patch should wait until the new libbackground APIs are avialable? Or should it go in in its current incarnation, and only use the new APIs when they're available? Will Evo2 require GNOME 2.6? --David > From: Rodney Dawes <dobey ximian com> > Date: 2003/11/26 Wed PM 03:53:55 EST > To: David Moore <davmre bellsouth net> > CC: Not Zed <notzed ximian com>, evolution-patches lists ximian com > Subject: Re: Re: [evolution-patches] Bounty Hunt patch: Set wallpaper from > >
On Mër , 2003-11-26 at 15:13, David Moore wrote: > New patch attached. > > > We shouldn't just store the image as "~/.background/" really. It adds > yet another dot-file to deal with. If we had an implementation for the > XDG Spec to use, I would suggest using the more appropriate path of > "$XDG_DATA_HOME/Wallpapers/$filename", but maybe we can just use a path > of "~/.gnome2/Wallpapers/$filename" for now instead. > > Okay, changed. I'm using ~/.gnome2/backgrounds because "background" seems to be the official GNOME terminology here (it's what the control-center applet is named, at any rate). Yeah. I'm trying to change that though, as the current capplet will hopefully be replaced in 2.6, with the new one I've been writing in my copious amounts of spare time. Wallpaper seems like a more appropriate metaphor for what is being done. So, as soon as I can get the UI team to do some review on the new capplet and work out any issues there, it will be going into control-center CVS. > > What you want to do is, if the full string for the gconf key is the same > as what you are aout to set it to, do nothing, otherwise, set it to the > new image filename > > The trouble with that is that GNOME won't register a change unless you modify the gconf key. So just doing nothing would leave the old image in place until the next login. Maybe there's a better way to force GNOME to update the background, but I don't know of any. In any case, it doesn't really matter much now, because the images aren't all overwriting each other in the same .background file any more. It sounds like we need to fix the appropriate pieces and possibly provide better API for determining if the image is the same or not. I'll add this to my TODO list for the libbackground cleanups I'm doing. > > You want to default to "wallpaper", not "stretched". This prevents very > small images from being stretched up to a very large screen. Another > good default might be "centered", since it avoids the stretching issue > as well. > > I see your point, but I don't know too many people who tile/center background images - they all stretch them. Anyway, it defaults to "wallpaper" now. Well, I could imagine that someone would send someone else a tile or alpha logo of some sort to set as the wallpaper. Tiled or centered makes much more sense in those cases, which was my point. And if the image is the same size as the screen, it really doesn't matter what you set it to, since all settings will basically result in the same look. However, once I get all the size detection stuff in the new wallpaper capplet, and do the split for allowing cycling of random wallpapers in the list, it might be better to integrate it with that so that it just does what's right for the image at hand. The patch looks good otherwise, aside from the little spots where your coding style doesn't match the Evolution style or other parts of your own patch. -- dobey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part