[Sugar-devel] Running sugar in a window

[Daniel Narvaez]

Note that the only visible difference in what I'm proposing is that Sugar
is shown full screen. The script takes care of creating another X session,
nothing you need to remember :)

I guess the question is... Would it be a big problem for you if there was
no option to run Sugar in a window and we would always run it fullscreen?

On Wednesday, 26 June 2013, James Simmons wrote:

> I do use Sugar running in a window when I develop Activities.  Granted it
> doesn't work that well, and some kinds of keystrokes don't make it into the
> window, but I find that it is a convenient way to test my Activities.  I
> understand that you can have more than one X session going on a Linux box
> and maybe that is an alternative but I can never remember how to do it.  So
> I'd prefer to keep it as an option even if there are known problems.
>
> James Simmons
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org>wrote:
>
> I use the option too.
> For me should be better keep it, just document where does not work.
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Manuel Quiñones <manuq at laptop.org> wrote:
>
> As Walter said.  For me it is nice to have the window option, and I use
> it.  But if it is a pain to maintain and takes time from you Daniel, I'm +1
> for dropping it.
>
>
> 2013/6/25 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
>
> From the POV of developers, the only advantage I see for seeing a
> window size is to test how Sugar/Activities run at different screen
> sizes. But much of this can be accomplished by setting the resolution
> of the full-screen X display, so I would argue it is not a priority.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > with sugar-emulator we used to run by default in a window. These days
> > sugar-runner defaults to full screen but it's still possible to make it
> use
> > a window by setting the resolution preference.
> >
> > I would like to understand how badly it would affect people if we only
> > allowed to run in fullscreen. Are you using the resolution preference?
> Would
> > it be a major problem if it went away?
> >
> > The issue is that at the moment there is no good solution for nesting X
> > inside X. Xephyr is buggy and pretty much unmaintained, and it's now
> > crashing at startup on unstable Ubuntu. Xvnc  might be an alternative but
> > last time I tried it was also crashy, it would be a bit complicated to
> setup
> > and it won't allow us to test hardware acceleration if we need that in
> the
> > future.
> >
> > Always running a full X session would probably simplify and make
> > sugar-runner more solid. There are challenges with that approach too with
> > systemd, but I believe those might be solvable.
> >
> > I'm probably not going to do anything about this until it becomes a
> problem
> > for sugar-build officially supported distros, but I'm thinking about the
> > issue and I'm interested in people feedback.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> .. manuq ..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
>
>

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130626/49bc0f79/attachment-0001.html>