30264 2003-10-03 11:32 0000 Patch for libwnck to fix broken gnome desktop switcher behaviour 2003-10-13 19:33:52 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux Ebuilds unspecified All Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 gentoo@jagerman.com gnome@gentoo.org avenj@gentoo.org kronenpj@kronenpj.dyndns.org tshead@k-3d.com gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-03 11:32:38 0000 The GNOME desktop switcher has been misbehaving since I upgraded to gnome 2.4 - on both my desktop and notebook. Specifically, what's happening is that the workspace is "moved" - so it appears that all the windows on the desktop move around when switching between desktops using the pager. For more details, it's covered in these bugs on bugzilla.gnome.org: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122512 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122205 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122086 The latter has a patch for libwnck which, to my understanding, fixes the problem by not moving the viewable desktop area if your desktop size is fixed (which is the correct behaviour). The patch applies cleanly to libwnck-2.4.0.1, and I can verify that applying it fixes the problem. gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-03 11:35:36 0000 Created an attachment (id=18686) Patch for libwnck to correct switcher behaviour gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-03 11:36:34 0000 Created an attachment (id=18687) Updated libwnck-2.4.0.1-r1 ebuild that applies patch obz@gentoo.org 2003-10-08 02:17:50 0000 *** Bug 30641 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** obz@gentoo.org 2003-10-08 02:24:20 0000 applied to libwnck-2.4.0.1 in portage, thanks for your report + gnome bugzilla links. foser@gentoo.org 2003-10-11 16:32:44 0000 *** Bug 30934 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-11 18:51:50 0000 Can someone explain to me why this wasn't bumped to -r1? Since it now installs something DIFFERENT (i.e. fixed) than the original 2.4.0.1, it should have been bumped so that people get the updated ebuild. I could understand it if 2.4.0.1 hadn't been installable, but if this isn't a case in point for a -r bump, I can't see what is - and duplicates (e.g. bug 30934) are still occuring because it wasn't bumped. gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-11 19:03:26 0000 To backup what I said in comment 6, from the Gentoo Linux Development Policy page, at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/policy.xml: ============ Versioning and revision bumps Package revision numbers should be incremented by Gentoo Linux developers when the ebuild has changed to the point where users would want to upgrade. Typically, this is the case when fixes are made to an ebuild that affect the resultant installed files, but the ebuild uses the same source tarball as the previous release. ============ obz@gentoo.org 2003-10-12 06:03:15 0000 as with all policy, the guidelines are just that, each situation needs to be interpreted by them. it's always important to consider that a revision will cause all users, those seeing the bug, and those not, to rebuild the package (if you were going to requote 'when the ebuild has changed to the point where users would want to upgrade'). in the light that this bug was caught within a few days of gnome going stable, and that it seems few people are actually seeing this bug (few in comparison to the other major gnome 2.4 questions/bugs we got), it was deemed unnecessary for a revision bump. gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-12 15:52:19 0000 I realize that some packages have revisions bumped far too much, for trivial things - in some cases, I've seen a ebuild bumped because someone cleaned up an ebuild without actually changing anything of the final program installed. However, in this case, anyone who has installed libwnck before it was silently updated, now have a broken gnome desktop switcher - and you're trying to say those users would NOT want to upgrade? In the light of the fact that duplicates bugs have been filed SINCE this was fixed, I ask you to reconsider bumping this. >>> as with all policy, the guidelines are just that, each situation needs to be interpreted by them. <<< Very true. What I don't understand is how package A, which was released broken, should be fixed for those people who install it after a certain date, but without hunting down this bug report, people who installed it BEFORE that date will not be able to resolve the issue. This guideline is particularly important as Gentoo should strive for any specific version of a package being the same across all systems (so long as compiler settings/use flags/etc. are the same). Without some consistency, saying "I have package-x.y.z installed; could it be causing the problem?" does not allow someone to respond "I have the same version installed, without any problems" - which they should be able to do, in order to enable users to help one another. To quote further from the guidelines: ============= If you make an internal, stylistic change to the ebuild that does not change any of the installed files, then there is no need to bump the revision number. Likewise, if you fix a compilation problem in the ebuild that was affecting some users, there is no need to bump the revision number, since those for whom it worked perfectly would see no benefit in installing a new revision, and those who experienced the problem do not have the package installed (since compilation failed) and thus have no need for the new revision number to force an upgrade. ============= The change was neither stylistic nor a compilation fix - so there doesn't seem to be much basis for your creative interpretation of the developer guidelines. Had libwnck been ~x86, I could understand the argument for not bumping the revision, but this was out in stable x86 for 3 full days, and in ~x86 for nearly a month - how many users do you suppose installed it and have no idea there is a fix available for this behaviour? All of those users don't want bugs to be fixed? >>> it's always important to consider that a revision will cause all users, those seeing the bug, and those not, to rebuild the package <<< libwnck is a pretty small package; recompiling is not as significant as compiling qt or openoffice, for instance. And I am sure that there are users out there with this installed who would like it fixed. avenj@gentoo.org 2003-10-12 21:05:59 0000 Jason is correct. It is pretty important to bump the revision when the installation is changed in any significant way, especially bugfixes. Obz, can you offer an explanation for why it would be harmful to bump the revision? Certianly, people will have to recompile, but this is not a huge package. foser@gentoo.org 2003-10-13 05:50:51 0000 nor is it a major bug, if we had to bump for every little fix people would have to recompile considerable more. I don't understand why this gets so much attention and someone writes up such a big story as to why this is a mistake complete with a days worth of research on the subject including both ethical and functional complaints. I see this happen with seriously larger ebuilds and more important fixes on a bigger scale and nobody makes a big fuzz there. Go find some other windmills. In short, the idea is that very few people of the considerable amount that use this package will encounter this bug (to my knowledge it will not happen on a default install), so it's not worth making all of them download and upgrade in my opinion. I think this all was quite clear from Obz initial comment. avenj@gentoo.org 2003-10-13 08:07:31 0000 It is a potentially important bugfix on a package with a ~300k tarball. There is no disadvantage to bumping the revision. Policy is that revision bumps are necessary if the material actually getting installed changes. If you don't agree with that policy, perhaps we should discuss that policy on -dev -- bugzilla's not really the right place for it. In any case, Obz has fixed it and it's a dead issue. gentoo@jagerman.com 2003-10-13 15:57:16 0000 In reply to comment 11, my point here was not so much about this package specifically, but about the tendency of some developers to make significant fixes without bumping the revision - in this case, the bug _was_ fairly significant as it affected everyone and anyone who uses the gnome desktop switcher with the unpatched libwnck. If my "days worth" of research (which consisted of a 5 minute look at the developer guidelines, and 15 minutes to write it up) helped Gentoo follow its own guidelines, then as a user of Gentoo, it seems worth it to me. You may not agree, and I leave you to your opinion. In any event, both issues here are now fixed. obz@gentoo.org 2003-10-13 19:33:52 0000 > in this case, the bug _was_ fairly significant > as it affected everyone and anyone who uses the > gnome desktop switcher with the unpatched libwnck. that's not entirely correct. and please, dont close bugs pre-emptively, i was leaving this open on purpose so i could remind myself to mark the new 2.4.0.1-r1 stable on x86 (which is happening today on advice from avenj). in any case, bug closed. 18686 2003-10-03 11:35 0000 Patch for libwnck to correct switcher behaviour libwnck-2.4.0.1-switcher-move-fix.patch text/plain ZGlmZiAtcnUgLVggZXhjbC5saXN0IGxpYnduY2stdHJ1bmsuY2xlYW4vbGlid25jay9wYWdlci5j IGxpYnduY2std29yay9saWJ3bmNrL3BhZ2VyLmMKLS0tIGxpYnduY2stdHJ1bmsuY2xlYW4vbGli d25jay9wYWdlci5jCTIwMDMtMDQtMDQgMTc6MDc6MzkuMDAwMDAwMDAwICswMjAwCisrKyBsaWJ3 bmNrLXdvcmsvbGlid25jay9wYWdlci5jCTIwMDMtMDktMjMgMjM6MTI6NTIuMDAwMDAwMDAwICsw MjAwCkBAIC0xMTQ5LDE0ICsxMTQ5LDUzIEBACiAKIAkgIGlmIChzcGFjZSkKICAgICAgICAgICAg IHsKLSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgd25ja193b3Jrc3BhY2VfYWN0aXZhdGUgKHNwYWNlKTsKKyNkZWZp bmUgTU9WRV9WSUVXUE9SVF9JTl9TQ1JFRU5fU0laRV9TVEVQUyAxCisjaWYgTU9WRV9WSUVXUE9S VF9JTl9TQ1JFRU5fU0laRV9TVEVQUworICAgICAgICAgICAgICBpbnQgc2NyZWVuX3dpZHRoLCBz Y3JlZW5faGVpZ2h0OworI2Vsc2UgLyogTU9WRV9WSUVXUE9SVF9DRU5URVJFRF9PTl9QT05URVIg Ki8KKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaW50IHNjcmVlbl93aWR0aCwgc2NyZWVuX2hlaWdodCwgbWF4X3gs IG1heF95OworI2VuZGlmCisKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLyogRG9uJ3Qgc3dpdGNoIHRoZSBkZXNr dG9wIGlmIHdlJ3JlIGFscmVhZHkgdGhlcmUgKi8KKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaWYgKHNwYWNlICE9 IHduY2tfc2NyZWVuX2dldF9hY3RpdmVfd29ya3NwYWNlIChwYWdlci0+cHJpdi0+c2NyZWVuKSkK KyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB3bmNrX3dvcmtzcGFjZV9hY3RpdmF0ZSAoc3BhY2UpOwogCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIC8qIEVXTUggb25seSBsZXRzIHVzIG1vdmUgdGhlIHZpZXdwb3J0IGZvciB0aGUg YWN0aXZlIHdvcmtzcGFjZSwKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICogYnV0IHdlIGp1c3QgZ28gYWhlYWQg YW5kIGhhY2tpbHkgYXNzdW1lIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFjdGl2YXRlCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAqIGp1 c3QgYWJvdmUgdGFrZXMgZWZmZWN0IHByaW9yIHRvIG1vdmluZyB0aGUgdmlld3BvcnQKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICovCi0gICAgICAgICAgICAgIHduY2tfc2NyZWVuX21vdmVfdmlld3BvcnQgKHBh Z2VyLT5wcml2LT5zY3JlZW4sCi0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIHZpZXdwb3J0X3gsIHZpZXdwb3J0X3kpOworICAgICAgICAgICAgICBzY3JlZW5fd2lkdGgg PSB3bmNrX3NjcmVlbl9nZXRfd2lkdGggKHBhZ2VyLT5wcml2LT5zY3JlZW4pOworICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBzY3JlZW5faGVpZ2h0ID0gd25ja19zY3JlZW5fZ2V0X2hlaWdodCAocGFnZXItPnByaXYt PnNjcmVlbik7CisjaWYgTU9WRV9WSUVXUE9SVF9JTl9TQ1JFRU5fU0laRV9TVEVQUworICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAvKiBUcmFuc2Zvcm0gdGhlIHBvaW50ZXIgbG9jYXRpb24gdG8gdmlld3BvcnQgb3Jp Z2luLCBhc3N1bWluZworICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKiB0aGF0IHdlIHdhbnQgdGhlIG5lYXJlc3Qg InJlZ3VsYXIiIHZpZXdwb3J0IGNvbnRhaW5pbmcgdGhlCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAqIHBvaW50 ZXIuCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAqLworICAgICAgICAgICAgICB2aWV3cG9ydF94ID0gKHZpZXdw b3J0X3ggLyBzY3JlZW5fd2lkdGgpICogc2NyZWVuX3dpZHRoOworICAgICAgICAgICAgICB2aWV3 cG9ydF95ID0gKHZpZXdwb3J0X3kgLyBzY3JlZW5faGVpZ2h0KSAqIHNjcmVlbl9oZWlnaHQ7Cisj ZWxzZSAvKiBNT1ZFX1ZJRVdQT1JUX0NFTlRFUkVEX09OX1BPTlRFUiAqLworICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAvKiBUcmFuc2Zvcm0gdGhlIHBvaW50ZXIgbG9jYXRpb24gdG8gdmlld3BvcnQgb3JpZ2luLCBh c3N1bWluZworICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKiB0aGF0IHdlIHdhbnQgdGhlIHBvaW50ZXIgY2VudGVy ZWQgaW4gdGhlIHZpZXdwb3J0LgorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKiBLZWVwIHRoZSB2aWV3cG9ydCBl bnRpcmVseSBvbiB0aGUgZGVza3RvcC4KKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICovCisgICAgICAgICAgICAg IG1heF94ID0gd25ja193b3Jrc3BhY2VfZ2V0X3dpZHRoIChzcGFjZSkgLSBzY3JlZW5fd2lkdGg7 CisgICAgICAgICAgICAgIG1heF95ID0gd25ja193b3Jrc3BhY2VfZ2V0X2hlaWdodCAoc3BhY2Up IC0gc2NyZWVuX2hlaWdodDsKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgdmlld3BvcnRfeCAtPSBzY3JlZW5fd2lk dGggLyAyOworICAgICAgICAgICAgICBpZiAodmlld3BvcnRfeCA8IDApCisgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgdmlld3BvcnRfeCA9IDA7CisgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGVsc2UgaWYgKHZpZXdwb3J0X3ggPiBt YXhfeCkKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB2aWV3cG9ydF94ID0gbWF4X3g7CisgICAgICAgICAgICAg IHZpZXdwb3J0X3kgLT0gc2NyZWVuX2hlaWdodCAvIDI7CisgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGlmICh2aWV3 cG9ydF95IDwgMCkKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB2aWV3cG9ydF95ID0gMDsKKyAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgZWxzZSBpZiAodmlld3BvcnRfeSA+IG1heF95KQorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHZpZXdwb3J0 X3kgPSBtYXhfeTsKKyNlbmRpZgorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaWYgKHdu Y2tfd29ya3NwYWNlX2dldF92aWV3cG9ydF94KHNwYWNlKSAhPSB2aWV3cG9ydF94IHx8CisgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICB3bmNrX3dvcmtzcGFjZV9nZXRfdmlld3BvcnRfeShzcGFjZSkgIT0gdmll d3BvcnRfeSkKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB3bmNrX3NjcmVlbl9tb3ZlX3ZpZXdwb3J0IChwYWdl ci0+cHJpdi0+c2NyZWVuLAorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIHZpZXdwb3J0X3gsIHZpZXdwb3J0X3kpOwogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgaWYgKHBhZ2VyLT5wcml2LT5kcmFnX3dpbmRvdykKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB3bmNrX3dp bmRvd19hY3RpdmF0ZSAocGFnZXItPnByaXYtPmRyYWdfd2luZG93KTsK 18687 2003-10-03 11:36 0000 Updated libwnck-2.4.0.1-r1 ebuild that applies patch libwnck-2.4.0.1-r1.ebuild text/plain IyBDb3B5cmlnaHQgMTk5OS0yMDAzIEdlbnRvbyBUZWNobm9sb2dpZXMsIEluYy4KIyBEaXN0cmli dXRlZCB1bmRlciB0aGUgdGVybXMgb2YgdGhlIEdOVSBHZW5lcmFsIFB1YmxpYyBMaWNlbnNlIHYy CiMgJEhlYWRlcjogL2hvbWUvY3Zzcm9vdC9nZW50b28teDg2L3gxMS1saWJzL2xpYnduY2svbGli d25jay0yLjQuMC4xLmVidWlsZCx2IDEuMSAyMDAzLzA5LzEwIDIyOjQwOjI1IGZvc2VyIEV4cCAk Cgppbmhlcml0IGdub21lMgoKREVTQ1JJUFRJT049IkEgd2luZG93IG5hdmlnYXRpb24gY29uc3Ry dWN0aW9uIGtpdCIKSE9NRVBBR0U9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ25vbWUub3JnLyIKCklVU0U9IiIKU0xP VD0iMCIKTElDRU5TRT0iR1BMLTIiCktFWVdPUkRTPSJ+eDg2IH5wcGMgfmFscGhhIH5zcGFyYyB+ aHBwYSB+YW1kNjQiCgpSREVQRU5EPSI+PXgxMS1saWJzL2d0aystMi4xCgk+PXgxMS1saWJzL3N0 YXJ0dXAtbm90aWZpY2F0aW9uLTAuNCIKCkRFUEVORD0iJHtSREVQRU5EfQoJPj1kZXYtdXRpbC9w a2djb25maWctMC4xMiIKCkRPQ1M9IkFVVEhPUlMgQ09QWUlORyBDaGFuZ2VMb2cgSU5TVEFMTCBO RVdTIFJFQURNRSIKCnNyY191bnBhY2soKSB7Cgl1bnBhY2sgJHtBfQoKCWNkICR7U307IGVwYXRj aCAke0ZJTEVTRElSfS8ke1B9LXN3aXRjaGVyLW1vdmUtZml4LnBhdGNoCn0K