Re: Planning the release 2.10 of themes - part 1

[Luca Ferretti <elle uca libero it>]

Il giorno lun, 01-11-2004 alle 17:30 -0500, Andrew Johnson ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 10:53 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:

> > --- Additional engines ----
> > 
> > A theme engine is not simply a control option. But a control option
> > needs one (or more) engine to be "referenced".
> > 
> > A theme engine is not related to GNOME, it's related to GTK+. But GNOME
> > uses it to provide control options.
> > 
> this isn't entirely true. theme engines can use traditionally gnome
> dependencies such as gconf, and in fact for a few minor options, I plan
> on adding just that too smooth. there is also the potential for adding
> librsvg or libart support to an engine, which is not strictly "just"
> gtk.

I didn't consider this case. Interesting. But engines that now are in
gnome-themes and gnome-themes-extra should use only plain gtk/gdk, isn't
it?

Of course we need a different approach for Smooth-NG when it will depend
on GConf. 

The first idea in my mind, is:
      * move engines in gtk-engines (this is a fixed point)
      * install a .pc file for each installed engine, rather then for
        the whole package
      * of course let Smooth depends on GConf, so don't compile it if
        GConf is not installed, but don't fail the compilation of others
      * make each theme in gnome-theme depend on related engine(s). So,
        for example, don't compile and install Glider if smooth-
        engine.pc is not available. Of course if Glider will be the
        default GNOME theme and smooth-engine.pc if not available, break
        the compilation and suggest to check gtk-engines installation.

IMHO is an acceptable behavior: GConf is a core GNOME library, but it's
low level (it don't needs gtk+, but only glib).


> > The route is simple: 
> >      1. move HC, Smooth, Thinice, Industrial (it's in
> >         gnome-themes-extra), Crux, LightHouseBlue and Mist engine code
> >         in gtk-engines 
> 
> Important question to consider, who will maintain this? owen has
> traditionally been the maintainer of gtk-engines, but due to his other
> responsibilities he has barely touched it in years, if you plan on
> adding all these engines to it, you had better have a lined up a
> replacement maintainer people can agree on and owen is willing to hand
> the problem over too. I have contemplated seeing about taking over
> myself, but regardless it should be thought about.

I suppose that people that now maintain engines in gnome-theme* can do
it if the engine is in a different location.

Of course a super-maintainer is needed for releases and other admin
tasks, and to start implement to stuff.

Any volunteer?  Maybe we could ask on gnome-devel and gtk-devel. I'm not
subscribed to the second one, can you send a message linking to this
thread?


> >      2. eventually remove Redmond95 and Metal (do we really still need
> >         them?)
> 
> Redmond yes, metal no. I rewrote redmond over a year ago(hasn't made it
> into gtk-engines because of owen's busy schedule).

Is it on bugzilla?

>  The main reason for
> it is integration and familiarity. Providing a theme by default that
> converts are comfortable with. For example I use redmond as a theme on
> one linux box among many windows boxes, with a similar panel layout to
> windows defaults, to help ease the transition for those who use it but
> are used to windows. I would in fact like to have a complete Redmond
> gnome theme, gtk, icon, and mcity for this reason included in
> gnome-themes.

Why don't use the plain GTK engine? The only big differences I can see
now between Redmond95 and Traditional is the color scheme. 

> >      3. add documentation about engines for theme makers. They need to
> >         know available options without read the code.
> > 
> 
> This I would potentially agree with, and that is why Thomas Wood and I
> have started merging things from my own wiki over to live.gnome.org in
> the art.gnome.org section covering these topics.

I was thinking about something installable. But as gtk-doc (so more
developer oriented) or as yelp manual (so more end user)?

Maybe I'll grab your stuff... By now I've to finish the Italian
translation of coreutils %-)

> > Put here only the engine code and a minimalistic gtkrc. You need a gtkrc
> > file to make the engine available, but provide it "as is". Ideally use
> > the GTK+ default colors and settings. Oh, maybe call it "xxx-engine"
> > 
> 
> Maybe yes maybe no. Some engines this makes some sense for others it
> doesn't, for example redmond obviously has a very specific default look,
> Smooth does not. Industrial has a very specific look, but xfce does not.
> 
> Presuming a default theme for a configurable theme engine, offers more
> problems with confusion then its worth. If you want to provide all major
> theme engines great, but don't muddle them up with "default" themes as
> well when you don't need too. 

Yes, this is really controversial and KDE-oriented: the engine changes
the appearance of widgets, the color scheme changes, well, the color
scheme. But GTK+ don't separe them, and you can use more then one engine
for a control option.

BTW take a look to redhat-artwork package. The Bluecurve control option
is provided in different color schema, while the theme uses the
redhat/fedora color scheme. This could be an interesting addition to
gnome-themes. 

> > Why we should do it? Well, first of all to have a rational organization.
> > Please note that currently Smooth engine is installed by gnome-themes
> > and gnome-themes-extra too: the code in g-t-e should be older then code
> > in g-t, so 'cause you typically install g-t-e after g-t, you downgrade
> > Smooth engine. So if/when someone will write the Butter engine from
> > Eugenia mochup, we will simply add it to gtk-engines package and upgrade
> > dependences in g-t and/or g-t-e to use it.
> > 
> this is actually because Uraeus, the maintainer of g-t-e, has been out
> and unavailable since before smooth got patched into gnome themes. He
> has thus not been able to remove it from g-t-e, though he is very for
> the taking industrial and smooth out of it and putting them into
> gtk-engines or gnome-themes.

This means that gnome-themes-extra should depend on gnome-theme. I've to
prepare a patch and open a but to install a gnome-theme.pc 

And this means that we have to search for a maintainer for g-t-e too.


Thanks for all your comments.

-- 
Luca Ferretti <elle uca libero it>