[arch-general] Gnome 3, a bug?

[Casey Peter]

On 05/05/2011 03:20 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 09:17, Casey Peter<caseyjp1 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 05/05/2011 01:43 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 07:38, Casey Peter<caseyjp1 at gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/2011 11:56 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 17:54, Damien Churchill<damoxc at gmail.com>
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>> You can disable extensions, taken from the Gnome Shell extensions page
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Per-user and systemwide extensions can be disabled with the GSettings
>>>>>> key org.gnome.shell.disabled-extensions"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions
>>>>> Yes, indeed it does say that, but it doesn't say how to actually
>>>>> disable them :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried to disable AlternateTab without success.  Here's what I've
>>>>> tried so far:
>>>>>
>>>>> % gsettings set org.gnome.shell disabled-extensions "@as
>>>>> ['AlternateTab']
>>>>> % gsettings set org.gnome.shell disabled-extensions "@as
>>>>> ['alternate-tab']
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone else managed to disable extensions?
>>>>>
>>>>> /M
>>>>>
>>>> Yes.  Disabling the extension is pretty simple.  Just go into the
>>>> /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions directory, rename the extension folder
>>>> to
>>>> .backup or something like .disabled. (just keep the original folder name
>>>> in
>>>> case you want to re-enable later).  You can then do an alt-f2 "lg" and
>>>> enter
>>>> and go to the extensions tab to verify what is/is not there.  To make the
>>>> change alt+f2 "r" enter to restart the gnome-shell.
>>> I'd very much like to avoid doing something like that, because it's
>>> "icky".  Renaming a system directory, owned by an installed package?
>>> That's not good practice for system administration in my opinion.  The
>>> Gnome 3 docs say it's possible to disable installed extensions on a
>>> per-user basis, I'd much prefer doing it that way.
>>>
>>> /M
>>>
>> It might be "icky", but you asked a question...I answered it.  I have it
>> working and do it that way for now, it works a charm, as some of those
>> extensions I am not fond of, having gotten used to the defaults during the
>> testing phase.  Adding a .xxx to the end of the file disables it and keeps
>> the basic folder name structure intact so later if I want it back "on" I
>> know exactly what to change.
>>
>>   The package(s) are in AUR anyway, and until we get a better method of
>> handling the stuff, this works for me.  As for good practice...its my own
>> machine in my own home, and I know what goes on in exquisite detail on that
>> box...so hey.  :D  (not knocking what you are saying for sys admin
>> purposes.)
> Indeed, you answered exactly the question I asked.  In the end I
> modified the PKGBUILD to only build the extensions I want.
>
> The packages in AUR (-git) seem to build broken software at the
> moment.  Modifying them to build the source tagged 3.0.1 results in
> working extensions.
>
> I just hope there's a documented way to control enabled extensions
> per-use once there's an extension package in [extra]/[community].
>
>> I really do like the looking glass tool though.  That is one nifty little
>> idsoftware kinda tool.  :-)
> Yes, I agree... the only thing that bugs we with it is getting rid of
> it.  Pressing 'ESC' to kill the window only works for me when I'm on
> the evaluator tab.
>
> /M
>

I just hope that extensions gets a nice gui to match the look/n/feel of 
the desktop itself.  I'm actually a little surprised it didn't from the 
get-go as this would have assuaged a LOT of folks who wanted to change 
said "defaults" in the first place...but hey, I'm part of the great 
'unwashed'.  heh heh

Off topic:
Yep re: the escape in Looking glass, but apparently that is by design.  
I read the docs online for that and its very specific as to how to leave 
it...and the escape in eval is it.  I'm guessing its to avoid leaving 
the app prematurely...but just guessing there.

/C