Bugzilla Bug 17766

The gnome-system-tools integrate perfectly in the Gnome Control Center. This
major  Gnome package is missing in portage.

http://www.gnome.org/projects/gst/screenshots.html


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Most of the tools unfortunately don't support gentoo very well.

maybe the reporter has some time on his hands to fix that problem and add
gentoo support ;) As it is the g-s-t are hardly useful on gentoo.

hehe... you are the Geniuses guys ! ;-)

Well, if you check the "Distro support" section on the web page, there are 2 tools supported under Gentoo: Time&Date and Boot.

This leads to think that support is being worked on for the other tools, and even only these 2 tools would be nice to have in the control center, as 2 is better than nothing ?

i dunno, when the other modules do not work we should hack them out otherwise
we will get bugreports on them.

And time is an easy one to support, so is boot. So the real challenging parts
are still there.

i have tested the latest GST 0.25 and found that boot is completely unreliable.
It messed up my grub setup. A much better tool for grub is grubconf.

Time, well.. is so easy i doubt it will be a problem. Didn't really test it

Users, seems also an obvious module, haven't tested it.

Networking and runlevel certainly do not work. 

Unless some work is being done on any these modules, there is no way i'm gonna
put this in for now. The Gentoo GNOME team certainly doesn't have the time
currently to work on any of this, so if there would be a user effort it would
be appreciated. For now marking as LATER.

*** Bug 23079 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

gnome-system-tools' latest version has full support for gentoo, so maybe it can
be added to portage now? Seems to work well for me when I installed it
myself...

Created an attachment (id=31595) [edit]
Ebuild for Gnome System Tools 0.33.0

Test ebuild for Gnome System Tools 0.33.0; based on work by Steven Grafton (see
bug 23079).

Needs two patches that I attach below.

Canek

Created an attachment (id=31596) [edit]
Patch to Makefile.in; if not applied, the sandbox is violated

If this patch is not applied, the emerge fails with ACCESS VIOLATION.

Created an attachment (id=31597) [edit]
Cosmetic patch to the glade interfaces.

This is a pure cosmetic patch. I have a request to the GTK+ team (look at it in
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-list/2004-May/msg00071.html), to allow the
invisible char in entries to be themeable. This patch just removes the explicit
declaration of the invisible char as '*', which allows my modified GTK+ to look
like this screenshot:
http://abulafia.fciencias.unam.mx/~canek/invisible-char.png

The ebuild has been tested only in my machine. I can change the time/date, add
and remove users, stop and start services (although the status of the services
are not quite right), and select the default LILO boot command line (I don't
use GRUB). I didn't play with the network settings, but they seems ok.

However the important thing is that gst is being Gentoo friendly by a
developers initiative; I think we should let the Gentoo community test this,
and redirect bugs upstream.

Canek

Created an attachment (id=31795) [edit]
gnome-system-tools-0.33.ebuild

I didn't like how things were handled in the posted ebuild, so here is ours. 

Good, if it's OK with the rest of the Gnome team, I'll take this one.

Hello guys and sorry for the delay,

I've committed an ebuild for gnome-system-tools 0.33.0 and it should show up on the mirrors soon.

Some comments on your contributed ebuilds:

Canek:
- Your Makefile patch looks fine, but it's always recommendable to try and find for a better solution that doesn't require patching.
- Your cosmetic patch looks good, but as a general rule, we tend to provide ebuilds that stick as close as possible to the original software releases. Of course, you're encouraged to share your particular contributions to the world (e.g. putting your ebuild and patches on a public website), and talk to the upstream developers and see if they can be included in the software.
- Defining S and SRC_URI is unnecessary.
- You should set KEYWORDS for the architectures that you have access to. For a new package, this usually means setting KEYWORDS to just "~x86".
- You're missing a number of R?DEPEND entries.
- The ebuild header text *must* be the same as that from </usr/portage/header.txt>.

Joe:
- Defining MY_PV, S and SRC_URI is unnecessary.
- Your ebuild defines the gconf dependency two times, and misses a number of runtime dependencies.
- The gconf schema handling is done in the gnome2 eclass, so your src_install() is not necessary either.


Your help is nonetheless _very_ appreciated and these guidelines are only recommendations for your future ebuild writing. :)

Thank you for your help.