who's setting a wild-card'ed background color resource.

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 12:23, George Hartzell wrote:
> Joe Marcus Clarke writes:
>  > On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 18:48, George Hartzell wrote:
>  > > George Hartzell writes:
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > I just got done updating ports on my 4.8 (4.8-RELEASE-p7) laptop,
>  > >  > using the current ports tree (as of a couple of days ago).
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > [...]
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > The problem is: my custom background colors have disappeared.
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > [...]
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > I think what's killing me is this resource:
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >   *background:    #dcdad5
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > [...]
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > I can't figure out where it's getting set.  Is is part of one of the
>  > >  > myriad themes that the various gnome things use?
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Pointers/suggestions would be appreciated.
>  > > 
>  > > [...]
>  > > 
>  > > It seems that it's some portion of the
>  > > gnome-control-center/theme-manager/gnome-settings-daemon that's
>  > > "helping" me out with this.
>  > > 
>  > > There are a bunch of relevant files in
>  > > /usr/X11R6/share/gnome/control-center-2.0/xrdb, which are being used
>  > > as templates.
>  > > 
>  > > So, now the question is, how to control this behaviour. 
>  > > [...]
>  >
>  > I don't see anywhere in gconf that this can be controlled.  You might be
>  > able to trick gnome-settings-daemon by creating bogus .ad files in
>  > ~/.gnome2/xrdb.
> 
> Well, it looks like it's not even a matter of *tricking*
> gnome-settings-daemon, it's set up to let you use your settings in
> favor of the system defaults by putting an identically named file in
> your .gnome2/xrdb.
> 
> *Except* for General.ad, which is what's splatting the wild-card
> resource.  gnome-settings-xrdb.c:scan_for_files() does this:
> 
> 	/* Add the initial file */
> 	list = g_slist_prepend (list, g_strdup (GENERAL_AD));
> 
> after merging the user and system app-default-file lists (preferring
> the user version).
> 
> Is there a gnome list/group where I could raise the issue of how badly
> this violates the POLA?  I could argue that the wildcard resource is
> nasty, or that being able override everything except the General.ad
> file is odd, or that there should be some way to control the
> behaviour.  Or, someone could convince me that this is the way that it
> should be (in which case I'll comment it out in the system file...).

You might bring this up on desktop-devel-list at gnome.org.

Joe

> 
> g.
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gnome/attachments/20031022/9dc9382c/attachment.bin