gnome-wm and "compiz ... glib gconf" vs "compiz ... ccp"

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 05:46:25PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 22:08 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>> some of the compiz plugins will not work properly unless compiz is
>>> started with the ccp plugin instead of glib/gconf.
>> Sounds like those plugins are broken and need fixing ?
> 
> Honestly I have no idea, other than seeing that people on the web as
> well as most compiz/fusion tools seem to suggest doing so.
> 
> If it's a bug then compiz & compiz-fusion are obviouly aware about it,
> since they provide workaround in their tools (and with compiz &
> compiz-fusion I mean core devs & community). And if they provide two
> workarounds, then either the bug is currently too involved to be fixed
> in a timely manner or it is not a bug but intended behaviour.
> 
> In either case it would be nice to have Fedora work properly out of
> the box. If it's a bug and does get fixed one day we can go back to
> glib/gconf instead of ccp. Is there any reason otherwise not to just
> patch gnome-wm to use ccp now?
> 
I think that user settings will get left behind each time you switch
between configuration backends.  That's a big negative.

A bugzilla report against the affected plugins will get some people
looking at whether it's a bug in the plugin or not.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/attachments/20081020/0ac4bee3/attachment.sig>