[08:34] <mpt> mhall119, absolutely a scope should depend on its lens, otherwise you could install it when it couldn't do anything
[08:34] <mpt> mhall119, if there's a policy that prohibits that, the policy is wrong.
[08:35] <mpt> mhall119, but it *also* should be marked as Enhances, so that it shows up as an add-on.
[08:36] <davidcalle> mpt, agreed. I've checked and scopes/lenses can have an exception on this policy.
[08:42] <didrocks> davidcalle: hey, which exception?
[08:43] <davidcalle> didrocks, packages in extras being interdependent.
[08:43] <didrocks> davidcalle: you mean, the lens depending on the scope and the scope depends on the lens?
[08:44] <davidcalle> didrocks, the policy is: no package can't depend on a .extras package.
[08:45] <didrocks> davidcalle: hum, why is it in the extra section? they should be in the optional one AFAIK
[08:45] <davidcalle> didrocks, and yes, scopes dependency on lens and lens dependency on scope, as some lenses are just empty structures for scopes.
[08:46] <didrocks> davidcalle: so, the inter dependency can't be done
[08:46] <davidcalle> didrocks, because it's the only way to have some of them for Oneiric, I believe.
[08:46] <didrocks> davidcalle: what I would suggest, if you still want to have the scope as separate source, is to have:
[08:46] <didrocks> scope depends on lens
[08:46] <didrocks> lens recommends scope
[08:47] <didrocks> that's what I do for instance, between gnome-panel and the session package
[08:47] <davidcalle> didrocks, that's what I'm currently doing, lens recommends scope.
[08:47] <davidcalle> didrocks, so if it's the good way to do it, then it's great.
[08:47] <didrocks> ah, this is ok, it's not a depends :)
[08:48] <didrocks> yeah, apt knows how to deal with that :)
[08:48] <didrocks> and as we install recommends by default…
[09:12] <mpt> davidcalle, there shouldn't be an exception for scopes and lenses either. I should be able to provide an extension for Epiphany or a campaign for Battle of Wesnoth the same way.
[09:13] <davidcalle> mpt, if you provide an extension, the Epiphany package won't depend on it. The extension will enhance it. The policy is about having packages depending on .extras packages.
[09:14] <mpt> davidcalle, the scope depends on the lens, not the other way around
[09:14] <mpt> There's no need to have a policy for something that an independent developer can't change anyway. :-)
[09:15] <davidcalle> mpt, yes but lenses can be empty shells that needs a scope to work. That's why lenses recommends some scopes.
[09:15] <davidcalle> I'm not saying the policy is right :)
[09:16] <mpt> davidcalle, so, why does it need an exception then?
[09:16] <davidcalle> mpt, in case you apt-get a scope.
[09:17] <mpt> davidcalle, that doesn't need an exception. It's already covered under 1.3.
[09:17] <davidcalle> mpt 1.3. ?
[09:17] <mpt> "1.3 The package may only depend on other packages that are present in ... the same extension repository."
[09:18] <mpt> hmm, it's misleading when elided :-)
[09:18] <mpt> "1.3 The package may only depend on other packages that are present in Main, Universe, Restricted, Multiverse, or in the same extension repository."
[09:18] <mpt> So, the scope would depend on the lens in the same extension repository.
[09:20] <davidcalle> mpt, are you sure it works this way in extras? I remember reading something about no dependencies allowed between extras packages.
[09:21] <mpt> davidcalle, if that policy isn't for extras, I don't know what it's for. But if you do find what you read, please let me know so I can get it deleted
[09:23] <davidcalle> mpt, I will look for it.
[15:23] <bernie> i was wondering if the notification bubbles in unity are really supposed to become shallow when you hover on them
[15:23] <bernie> there's no obvious way to get rid of them
[15:23] <bernie> is this by design?
[15:27] <mhall119> bernie: yes, they are supposed to be non-interactive
[15:27] <mhall119> they go transparent when you hover over them so that they don't block any UI elements under them
[15:28] <bernie> mhall119: yeah, i can click through them
[15:28] <mhall119> and they will go away on their own without requiring any action on yur part
[15:28] <bernie> is there a way to switch to classic notification bubbles?
[15:28] <mhall119> not that I know of
[15:28] <mhall119> is there something specific you don't like about the new style, or a functionality you feel is missing?
[15:31] <bernie> mhall119: i find it somewhat annoying that i can't dismiss the overlay immediately... I even thought it was some sort of compiz bug
[15:32] <mhall119> bernie: that's because you're used to notifications demanding your attention
[15:33] <mhall119> if you use it for a little while, you wil adjust to thinking of them as more passive, something you can glance at and then get back to whatever you were doing
[15:33] <mhall119> they become less annoying once you learn to stop worrying about them
[15:33] <bernie> mhall119: ok, makes sense
[15:33] <mhall119> it took me about a month to get to that point
[15:34] <bernie> mhall119: i'm a gnome-shell refugee :)
[15:34] <mhall119> welcome to Unity ")
[15:34] <mhall119> :)
[15:34] <bernie> mhall119: i like unity much better, except for a few annoyances
[15:34] <mhall119> well this is the place to talk about those
[15:36] <bernie> mhall119: the #1 issue i have is that windows get reshuffled on different virtual desktops when reslution changes (like, plugging an external monitor)
[15:37] <bernie> others are probably not bugs, but different design choices that i need to get used to
[15:38] <mhall119> bernie: ah, multi-monitor support has been given a lot of attention this cycle
[15:38] <mhall119> so that should be improving
[15:38] <bernie> mhall119: i'm tracking precise on my old laptop.
[15:39] <bernie> mhall119: are there plans to restore session save/restore support in a future version of unity?
[15:39] <mhall119> that I don't know
[15:39] <bernie> mhall119: i understand it was dropped because gnome3 also doesn't support it
[15:39] <mhall119> in my experience, session save/restore never worked that well, even in Gnome2
[15:40] <mhall119> ah, if gnome3 doesn't provide it, it would take a lot of work to add it in Ubuntu
[15:40] <bernie> mhall119: yes, it didn't. mostly due to several applications that don't honor the XSM protocol. (like chromium and xchat for example)
[15:58] <bernie> mhall119: here's another one: in the gtk3 transition, we've lost the indicator for changing the screen resolution. is it coming back?
[15:59] <bernie> mhall119: and we're also missing a virtual desktop indicator. i found indicator-workspaces in launchpad, but it seems unmaintained.
[16:23] <snadge> is a focussed window supposed to look different from an unfocussed window?
[16:32] <mhall119> bernie: a virtual desktop indicator?  There's the workspace switcher in the launcher, and super+s shortcut
[16:33] <mhall119> snadge: differentin what way?
[16:35] <jasox> mhall119, i think that snadge means on shadows and close, min, max buttons.
[16:38] <mhall119> oh, then yes
[16:40] <snadge> window focussing isnt working.. or at least.. visual indication of
[16:40] <snadge> for example.. this window im using irc in.. is shadowed
[16:40] <snadge> even though it has focus.. could be a ccsm setting maybe?
[16:40] <snadge> also.. im running 12.04 ;)
[16:41] <snadge> just built a new bulldozer 8150 system
[16:41] <snadge> and 12.04 comes with kernel 3.2 .. which is probably better for that
[16:45] <jasox> What do you think guys on my proposal on changing alt-tab switcher size ?
[16:45] <jasox> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/909180
[16:46] <jasox> I was thinking to make ppa something like unity compact, that will have smaller alt-tab switcher, smaller top panel size, window title bar, borderless ...
[17:08] <snadge> about to try building android 4 on 12.04 :p
[18:01] <mterry_> Heyo!  The google doc link is broken in the recent design blog post about the precise control center