[00:05] Ooh, this DOES look cool: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Hardy/Alternate/BasicIdeals [00:06] Though I still like Aurora. [00:08] impossible with the current gnome software [01:28] * tehk can't wait for murrine 0.60 and translucent windows [01:29] its fake transparency right? [01:29] it wouldnt be dependant on a compmgr [01:35] Actually, it seems to be real transparency. [01:36] http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/12/12/gnome-theme-engine-designer-adds-transparency-to-gtk [01:39] The translucency effects obviously require a compositing window manager, but the theme engine is designed so that the widgets will simply be rendered without transparency when no compositing window manager is present. [01:52] Yea so scaling is alreay there [01:53] WTF? I just scrolled and stopped, and the screen kept scrolling for another 3 pages. === elkbuntu_ is now known as elkbuntu [10:35] hi === nothlit_ is now known as nothlit [15:45] ello [19:16] Is it a good idea to have Ubuntu branding instead of GNOME in gnome-system-monitor's "System" tab? [19:52] no, we decided not to brand that [19:53] we want to stay away from branding everything ubuntu [22:04] kwwii, ping [22:05] somerville32: pong [22:05] kwwii, I can package. [22:05] somerville32: killer, that would be great [22:05] it is not like the tings we do are very hard or technicaly challending [22:05] erm, you get my point [22:05] I'm surprised you guys are having trouble finding people to do it [22:06] yeah, I assumed that people would step up and help [22:06] the first thing we want to do is put the elephant wallpaper as the default version for Hardy [22:06] One question [22:06] Is there an artwork council? [22:06] that means moving the package to a new name and moving the current pics around [22:07] no, there is no artwork council, I am the boss :p [22:07] Ok. [22:07] actually, mark is the boss [22:07] and I am just the appointed person doing his bidding [22:07] <_MMA_> No, there's a problem finding a "dedicated" person to do it. ;) [22:07] as i work for canonical it makes most sense to do things through me [22:08] as I can ask developers for favors that they kinda *have* to do ;-) [22:08] lol [22:08] <_MMA_> kwwii: And what the hell are you doing around anyway? :) Shouldnt you be kicking back with a beer somewhere? [22:09] _MMA_: has to watch my kid while my wife is at a christmas party [22:09] and as he just went to bed I just popped open a beer :-) [22:09] <_MMA_> Ahh... ;) [22:10] get this...I found a couple of other people who have their own companies or work from home and we are all going out on monday to have our own christmas party [22:10] * _MMA_ waits for a pizza. Then is gonna watch movies with the kids. (ironically while the wife also goes to a party) ;) [22:11] ;-) [22:11] it is that time of the year [22:11] <_MMA_> Yep. hehe. "Work from home Christmas party." Neat. [22:12] actually, since I started renting an office away from home I really notice the difference [22:12] it is really nice to have a place to go and other people to see [22:12] <_MMA_> Yeah. I can imagine. Thats killing me now and I can wait to go back to work. [22:13] <_MMA_> I love 'em but I swear I wanna kill 'em more often now. :) [22:13] :) [22:13] getting away from home is really important now and again [22:13] btw. this is for everyone: [22:13] I updated the specs for hardy [22:14] so everyone knows where we stand [22:14] more info coming soon [22:14] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/ [22:14] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/HardyIconTheme and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/HardyTheme [22:15] kwwii, so, what do you want me to do? [22:15] somerville32: for now, we need to update gutsy-wallpapers [22:16] which means we need to make a new package called hardy-wallpapers [22:16] <_MMA_> somerville32: *IF* you do this you should also coordinate with TheMuso as he is coming up with a more manageable system for Ubuntu Studio's art. [22:16] and switch the current default and the elephant wallpapers [22:17] as far as the wallpapers go we need to think of a better way to update things [22:17] <_MMA_> kwwii: Its nuts to make a new package just for a wallpaper update. [22:17] as now we use a certain filename to set it [22:17] _MMA_: it is either that or get away from the release names at all [22:17] Why are you creating new packages? [22:17] <_MMA_> Id just update the Gutsy one and really look at the system Luke is coming up with. [22:17] somerville32: the important part is that the name of the package changes [22:18] _MMA_: yes, we can do that, but we should all work together to find the best solution [22:18] kwwii, Why not just put it in a ubuntu-artwork package or something? [22:18] somerville32: yeah, that is what I thought too [22:18] we do not have one package which includes all the themeing [22:19] the reason seems to be that this way we can allow people to install older artwork packages without removing the current [22:19] <_MMA_> somerville32: Just talk to TheMuso. I dont want you running off and duplicating efforts. [22:20] <_MMA_> Our plan is to have 1 source package that generated all the needed binary packages. [22:20] <_MMA_> *generates [22:20] while that is interesting I am not certain that it is the best way to go about it [22:21] although kubuntu does it like that for ever and it works really well [22:21] <_MMA_> It would be fine. [22:21] you need someone who really knows what they are doing to update something or a simple mistake breaks everything [22:21] <_MMA_> What dont you think would work? [22:21] and changing one thing requires rebuilding almost everything in the whole desktop [22:21] <_MMA_> Naa.... [22:22] Why do we need multiple binary packages? [22:22] <_MMA_> kwwii: It really shouldnt be that bug a deal. [22:22] <_MMA_> somerville32: Because not everyone would want to install it all. [22:22] Fair enough [22:23] well, we also have different releases of that package for every variant and release [22:25] <_MMA_> kwwii: Why? [22:25] <_MMA_> Well, actually, For some parts yes. [22:26] ;-) [22:26] <_MMA_> But it shouldnt be a big deal at all. [22:26] see how having one big package does change the way you have to do things? [22:26] <_MMA_> Because you can still depend on the binary packages. [22:27] <_MMA_> Sure but it shouldnt be an issue really. Ubuntu Studio's art should be different from Ubuntu. But I can still depend on a binary package the comes out of Ubuntus. [22:29] oh it is certainly doable [22:29] <_MMA_> kwwii: Show me exactly how it will be an issue, but I gotta read it later. Kids are calling me. :) [22:30] dude, I am not sure that it will be a real problem, I am just asking open questions :p [22:31] Hey TheMuso [22:31] We were just talking about packaging for Artwork [22:31] TheMuso, _MMA_ says that you're looking at ways to improve the process? [22:31] Right. [22:32] Yes I am. [22:32] kwwii, said that he is looking for packages and I've volunteered. _MMA_ recommends I coordinate with you. [22:33] no matter what we do, I don't want to waste anyones time [22:33] Understandable. [22:34] somerville32: SO what do you know so far about the current way the artwork is packaged? [22:34] TheMuso, That there is a new package for each release [22:34] somerville32: SO you haven't dug any further yet [22:35] No, I've only started speaking with kwwii 30 minutes ago [22:36] Right. [22:36] many packages are just small pieces of the themeing which get updated every release, and some have release specific names [22:37] kwwii: Yeah I know, ubuntustudio is kinda the same. [22:37] somerville32: Well, in its curren state, the artwork for Ubuntu uses autoconf/automake. [22:38] * somerville32 nods. [22:38] not all of it [22:40] kwwii: The ubuntu-artwork package proper is though afaik. [22:41] sorry the icon theme [22:41] right [22:42] Thats the one I'm looking at improving packaging for. [22:42] Since ours is based on autoconf/automake, ours being ubuntustudio [22:42] many of our packages use python instead [22:42] it has proven to be much easier [22:43] Python-distutils, yeah agreed. [22:43] exactly [22:43] I'm thinking that is a good option for icon-theme. [22:44] basically, I know enough to know how much I don't know :p [22:44] yeah, moving the icon them from using a makefile would be a big improvement [22:44] bbl, gotta go do chores, but I'll have a think about whats required to switch to distutils, considering there are so many icon dirs. [22:45] cool, see you around [22:46] somerville32: in any case, if we can at least update the stuff for hardy to use the elephant wallpaper as default instead of the current gutsy default it would be a good step forward [22:47] kwwii, and you want this in a new s/b package for now? [22:47] somerville32: yeah, that seems like the best step at this time [22:48] <_MMA_> I dont think it needs to be. [22:48] <_MMA_> That requires changing depends on other packages. [22:49] <_MMA_> Just keep using the Gutsy package with the default changed. [22:49] <_MMA_> *Gutsy named. [22:50] <_MMA_> That way you dont have to touch "ubuntu-artwork" as well. [22:51] <_MMA_> *IF* this is a temporary solution that is. [22:52] I do not think that at this time you have to touch ubuntu-artwork as well [22:52] <_MMA_> If you create a new package yes you will. [22:52] hrm, you might be right [22:52] seb128 would know more [22:53] but if we have to do that, I can just tell him to do it :p [22:53] I can update ubuntu-artwork too if needed [22:53] kwwii, It is your call [22:53] <_MMA_> Dammit. Just do like I said. :P Its 2 changes. [22:53] we should just ask seb [22:54] but it makes little sense logically to update a package for hardy called "gutsy-wallpapers" [22:54] <_MMA_> Well he would have to push the changes to the archive anyway. [22:54] then there would be no chance to install that package logically on a newer system [22:54] <_MMA_> But that only if you're sticking with the current packaging scheme. [22:55] <_MMA_> This can just be temp like I daid. [22:55] <_MMA_> *said [22:55] right [22:55] <_MMA_> I really think you're making this wallpaper change more than it needs to be. :P [22:56] :p [22:56] <_MMA_> I could see if you know your sticking with the current system but you keep talking about changing it. [22:56] mark said that we should update it asap [22:56] right, but changing it without knowing exactly what you are doing is silly [22:57] <_MMA_> Thats why changing the gutsy-named package for now is fine. [22:57] <_MMA_> I guess you have to say for what cycle you want to make the packaging change. [22:57] right, it probably is enough for now [22:57] <_MMA_> This or +1 [22:58] <_MMA_> You could always use Ubuntu Studio's change as a test and switch +1. [22:58] <_MMA_> Maybe for now, its best to keep with the current system so as to minimize the amount of work involved for all. [22:59] <_MMA_> But that's your call. [22:59] _MMA_: I think we might as well change as now, but I want to only change once [23:00] so knowing exactly what you are doing and discussing it with other devs is important before we change [23:01] <_MMA_> Sure. So for now, just change the gutsy-named package and work with Ubuntu Studio on their system. There's no reason why we can also involve seb. [23:02] right [23:03] <_MMA_> gah. *cant (you got it) [23:05] So, whats the verdict? [23:05] <_MMA_> I've said my piece. ;) [23:05] I think that the most important part for now is that we update things [23:06] we can work out the long term plan later [23:06] gotta run to get my wife [23:06] brb [23:06] Ok, so I'll keep the current model and create a new source package and update the ubuntu-artwork package to reflect [23:06] somerville32: sounds like the best plan for now [23:07] <_MMA_> pfftt. Sayz you. [23:07] lol [23:07] <_MMA_> ;) [23:09] So, gutsy-elephant-skin.jpg -> ubuntu-final.jpg ? [23:11] <_MMA_> Should be. [23:11] * _MMA_ thought they were .pngs? [23:11] <_MMA_> And you're editing the wallpapers.xml file right? [23:12] <_MMA_> Damn. Gotta go. bbl [23:22] somerville32: yeah, but we probalby need to include the old default under another name [23:23] dholbach already updated the package in hardy to archive the gutsy stuff [23:24] Is the first item in ubuntu-wallpapers.xml.in the default or something? [23:27] <_MMA_> Actually, the default is set in a gconf key. [23:27] <_MMA_> So your wallpaper has to be named the same thing or you need to touch the package that sets the key. [23:29] right [23:29] the names in the xml should be apparetn [23:29] nt [23:29] the elephant background is not png like simple was [23:29] so I'll have to update that package [23:29] erm, shit [23:30] or convert it to png [23:30] <_MMA_> See... this is why the system needs to be changed. [23:30] no doubt [23:30] I forgot about that part [23:30] the easy way is to just convert it to png [23:30] <_MMA_> So the new Hardy package needs to be named the same. [23:30] <_MMA_> gah [23:30] or change the package and then also change the gconf setting [23:31] man, see what I mean when I say that an artist should not have to deal with this stuff? [23:32] <_MMA_> Well I would do both. (as long as someones touching it) Change the gconf setting to something generic like "ubuntu.png" and stick with that from now on. [23:32] <_MMA_> Then change the wallpaper name. [23:33] ubuntu-final.png is what we have been using [23:33] yeah, probably the best bet although I would like to really discuss the final fname with people to find what is really best [23:33] err.. final-ubuntu.png [23:33] so I'll convert elephant to png [23:34] I mean, the whole problem we have now is because a few people made a quick decision which sucked [23:34] <_MMA_> "We" as in Xubuntu? [23:34] somerville32: yeah, for now that is enough [23:35] What does Xubuntu have to do with this? [23:36] <_MMA_> "somerville32: ubuntu-final.png is what we have been using" "_MMA_: "We" as in Xubuntu?" [23:36] xubuntu has nothing to do with this [23:36] lol [23:36] _MMA_, We as in this package :P [23:36] I am pretty sure they have their own name [23:36] we as in ubuntu [23:36] <_MMA_> The Ubuntu one should have "warty" in the name. [23:36] <_MMA_> Not just "final-ubuntu.png". [23:37] Ah, right [23:37] <_MMA_> Hence the question. ;) [23:37] warty-final-ubuntu.png has to be the name for now [23:37] <_MMA_> And thats the whole reason we have this problem. [23:38] exactly [23:38] but before we just go pick another name at random, let's think this out first [23:38] <_MMA_> Like I keep saying "ubuntu.png" or even "final-ubuntu.png" is good. [23:39] probably, but maybe there is something better [23:39] <_MMA_> But I wouldnt so systemic changes until we get seb, luke and all of us together. [23:40] I cannot think of anything better, but I want to have a meeting about this and get people's official opinions and statements before making a mistake [23:40] right [23:40] <_MMA_> Naa... Nice and generic. Otherwise you risk the same situation we have now. [23:40] <_MMA_> w00t! Pizza's here. [23:41] w00t, the word of the year [23:41] I love that fact [23:44] kwii, what's the rationale in not branding g-s-m's "System" tab? [23:45] mgunes: we only brand important things so that derivatives have an easier time at it [23:45] hm, I wonder what the gnome foot is doing in there === andreasn_ is now known as andreasn [23:46] why have any logo at all there [23:46] = [23:46] ? [23:46] right [23:46] kwii, I think this should be included in "important things" [23:46] hi andreasn [23:46] hey [23:46] mgunes: actually, we had a long discussion about this before gutsy [23:46] if anything is going to appear there at all, OS branding makes more sense [23:47] * TheMuso return [23:47] returns [23:47] kwii, in the mailing list? I'd like to read it [23:47] mgunes: nope [23:47] it was a private discussion within canonical [23:48] kwwii, how exactly does rebranding make it more difficult for derivatives? I'm not arguing that it shouldn't; I'd just like to learn how [23:51] it makes one more pic to change [23:51] and it also makes things nasty when you run on app in another desktop/variant [23:51] in the end, I did make pics for it but they were removed [23:52] and it really does seem right to show that, if anything, it is a gnome desktop [23:52] nautrally, we could bring the issue up again and see what comes of it [23:52] <_MMA_> mgunes: Really, for Ubuntu Studio, I dont wanna have to brand every little thing. Im cool with not hiding everything mentioning GNOME. [23:53] it's not the best place to show that it's a gnome desktop. System / About GNOME does that. the info presented in the g-s-m capplet is more closely associated with the operating system than the desktop environment [23:53] actually, we are also working on makeing a bling version of the about stuff [23:53] * mgunes knows [23:53] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/HardyShine?highlight=%28%5EDesktopTeam%2FSpecs%2F.%2A%29 [23:54] erm [23:57] lol, this makes me wonder when the artwork team really rocked: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_124/2645-Riding-the-Failure-Cascade [23:58] I think the professional touch it adds would be worth the tiny bit of work it adds for derivatives [23:58] <_MMA_> Also, that colored gradient in g-s-m is pulled from the theme so I dont know how that image is actually done. [23:58] it is a funky thing [23:58] it has a pic which it lays on a bg, irrc [23:58] <_MMA_> I also dont believe in removing all traces of GNOME branding. Where does it end? [23:59] much like all other gnome themeing things, it seems like a freaky hack [23:59] :p [23:59] <_MMA_> kwwii: Well the "foot" itself is colored from the gtkrc. [23:59] _MMA_, I'm not arguing for removing all traces of GNOME branding. it just doesn't fit into this particular place, unlike OS branding. [23:59] <_MMA_> Like I said "Where does it end?".