[blfs-dev] gnome-system-monitor wnck

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Mon Sep 28 12:28:48 PDT 2015


Em 28-09-2015 16:10, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:49:52PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:09:05AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>> Em 27-09-2015 18:04, ken at higgs.linuxfromscratch.org escreveu:
>>
>> Let's take this back to -dev.
>>
>>>> Author: ken
>>>> Date: Sun Sep 27 14:04:27 2015
>>>> New Revision: 16477
>>>>
>>>> Log:
>>>> Minor fixups in gnome.
>>>>
>>
>>>> +++ trunk/BOOK/gnome/applications/gnome-system-monitor.xml	Sun Sep 27 14:04:27 2015	(r16477)
>>>> @@ -123,6 +123,16 @@
>>>>  
>>>>    </sect2>
>>>>  
>>>> +  <sect2 role="commands">
>>>> +    <title>Command Explanations</title>
>>>> +
>>>> +    <para>
>>>> +      <parameter>--enable-wnck</parameter>: This switch adds support for
>>>> +      <application>libwnck</application>.
>>>> +    </para>
>>>> +
>>>> +  </sect2>
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This is very clarifying, indeed!!!
>>>
> 
> And on -book Bruce commented:
> 
> | LOL.  Yes I agree.  How about:
> |
> | This switch adds support for the  Window Navigator Construction Kit
> | libraries.
> 
> I have now built gnome-system-monitor both with and without libwnck,
> and run the without version from a DESTDIR.  I cannot see any
> obvious difference in the display, and the only thing I have
> detected is that the binary is a bit bigger when linked to libwnck.
> 
> The switch was added in May last year (yes, I have been ignoring
> gnome packages), in r13135 when the book moved to the 3.12.2
> version.  At that time, libwnck was downgraded from Required to
> Recommended.  I respect Fernando's judgement that it should be
> recommended, even if I cannot work out what benefit it provides.
> Perhaps some windowmanagers benefit from this switch ?
> 
> I found that there was a bug in 3.12.2 where --disable-wnck was
> treated as --enable-wnck, but nothing else.
> 
> In the absence of an explanation for the benefits of doing this,
> I'll go with Bruce's wording.
> 
> ĸen
> 

Here is an agreement. I barely remember the reasons, perhaps I thought
if it was until recently required, perhaps it is important to keep in
recommended. For me I would simply move to optional. Like you, I cannot
work out any benefit.

Thanks for mentioning.

+ 1 to move to optional.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list