[Sugar-devel] Running sugar in a window

[Gonzalo Odiard]

At times, you need see the logs _and_ the sugar interface at the same time,
to be able to check when something is done.
That is the main reason I have found to need use sugar in a window,
and is important enough to me.
Why is important remove a feature working in our main platforms?

Gonzalo


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:

> An explanation of why exactly the option is important for you would be
> useful. We probably all agree that it's a nice option to have, but it would
> have a pretty high maintenance cost.
>
>
> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013, Gonzalo Odiard 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130626/5d251ef3/attachment.html>