I added a KControl check box control for the shutdown feedback dialog. The one that says "Saving your settings" when logging out.
The underlying support already existed. The check box merely adds a direct way for users to show or disable the dialog box.
The patch provides nominal temporary relief against bug report 922: "When logging out with unsaved file, trinity does not ask to save it," (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=922). Currently the only solution to that bug is a work-around of disabling the feedback dialog.
The patch is available through bug report 681 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=681).
Please test. Upon receiving a successful report I'll push to GIT.
Thanks for helping. :)
Darrell
On 04/06/2012 10:31 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
I added a KControl check box control for the shutdown feedback dialog. The one that says "Saving your settings" when logging out.
The underlying support already existed. The check box merely adds a direct way for users to show or disable the dialog box.
The patch provides nominal temporary relief against bug report 922: "When logging out with unsaved file, trinity does not ask to save it," (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=922). Currently the only solution to that bug is a work-around of disabling the feedback dialog.
The patch is available through bug report 681 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=681).
Please test. Upon receiving a successful report I'll push to GIT.
Thanks for helping. :)
Darrell
I'll try building it tonight and let you know...
On Saturday 07 of April 2012 05:31:37 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I added a KControl check box control for the shutdown feedback dialog. The one that says "Saving your settings" when logging out.
The underlying support already existed. The check box merely adds a direct way for users to show or disable the dialog box.
The patch provides nominal temporary relief against bug report 922: "When logging out with unsaved file, trinity does not ask to save it," (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=922). Currently the only solution to that bug is a work-around of disabling the feedback dialog.
The patch is available through bug report 681 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=681).
Please test. Upon receiving a successful report I'll push to GIT.
Thanks for helping. :)
Darrell
Tested in 3.5.13 - works well - signoff from me.
Slávek --
I added a KControl check box control for the shutdown
feedback dialog. The one that says "Saving your settings" when logging out.
The underlying support already existed. The check box
merely adds a direct way for users to show or disable the dialog box.
The patch provides nominal temporary relief against bug
report 922: "When logging out with unsaved file, trinity does not ask to save it," (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=922). Currently the only solution to that bug is a work-around of disabling the feedback dialog.
The patch is available through bug report 681 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=681).
Please test. Upon receiving a successful report I'll
push to GIT.
Thanks for helping. :)
Tested in 3.5.13 - works well - signoff from me.
Okay, thanks!
Before pushing to GIT I want to wait until Calvin finishes his patch for bug report 258. The check box added with this patch should be in the same group box in KControl with his patch.
Darrell
On Sunday 08 of April 2012 02:50:33 Darrell Anderson wrote:
Okay, thanks!
Before pushing to GIT I want to wait until Calvin finishes his patch for bug report 258. The check box added with this patch should be in the same group box in KControl with his patch.
Darrell
Right. I also plan to include Calvin's patch to updates for 3.5.13. :)
Slávek --
On 7 April 2012 20:57, Slávek Banko slavek.banko@axis.cz wrote:
On Sunday 08 of April 2012 02:50:33 Darrell Anderson wrote:
Okay, thanks!
Before pushing to GIT I want to wait until Calvin finishes his patch for bug report 258. The check box added with this patch should be in the same group box in KControl with his patch.
Darrell
Right. I also plan to include Calvin's patch to updates for 3.5.13. :)
Slávek
Hey guys I am sorry this is taking so so very long :|
I've been away at the grandparents abode in the motherlands of new england for most of this week. Tomorrow is also a big booked day. I am the in house bass player for my church and Eater morning tends to be the most stressful Sunday of the year. Hopefully I can sneak off after our easter dinner and lay the crackdown on this patch.
Expect it by Friday the latest and please remember to bug me about it! Calvin
Hey guys I am sorry this is taking so so very long :|
I've been away at the grandparents abode in the motherlands of new england for most of this week. Tomorrow is also a big booked day. I am the in house bass player for my church and Eater morning tends to be the most stressful Sunday of the year. Hopefully I can sneak off after our easter dinner and lay the crackdown on this patch.
Expect it by Friday the latest and please remember to bug me about it!
If you have the basics started, then send me that. I only want to ensure both patches end up in the same group box. You sent me a mock up a while back so I presume you have the basics started, but I no longer have that picture.
Right now I dumped my check box in the General group box.
Please be sure to read the additional comments I added in the bug report.
Enjoy your weekend.
Darrell
On 7 April 2012 22:34, Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
Hey guys I am sorry this is taking so so very long :|
I've been away at the grandparents abode in the motherlands of new england for most of this week. Tomorrow is also a big booked day. I am the in house bass player for my church and Eater morning tends to be the most stressful Sunday of the year. Hopefully I can sneak off after our easter dinner and lay the crackdown on this patch.
Expect it by Friday the latest and please remember to bug me about it!
If you have the basics started, then send me that. I only want to ensure both patches end up in the same group box. You sent me a mock up a while back so I presume you have the basics started, but I no longer have that picture.
Right now I dumped my check box in the General group box.
Please be sure to read the additional comments I added in the bug report.
Enjoy your weekend.
Darrell
I've read over your comments ( these conf names are the darndest confusing ambiguous buggers of all time). I will patch your patch into min, then lets push them together as one?
Calvin
I've read over your comments ( these conf names are the darndest confusing ambiguous buggers of all time). I will patch your patch into min, then lets push them together as one?
If you have that much energy, sure go ahead.... :)
I know how naming conventions go. I look at some of the things I have done a few years later and I wonder where my mind was when I conjured up some variable names. :) But those two similar key names had me completely fooled for a long time.
Although I changed the key name in my patch, let's change the key names in your patch as well.
I notice the KControl Session Manager module includes a group box named "On Login." Why don't we place the new group box just below that group box and call the new group "On Logout"?
Darrell
On 7 April 2012 22:59, Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
I've read over your comments ( these conf names are the darndest confusing ambiguous buggers of all time). I will patch your patch into min, then lets push them together as one?
If you have that much energy, sure go ahead.... :)
I know how naming conventions go. I look at some of the things I have done a few years later and I wonder where my mind was when I conjured up some variable names. :) But those two similar key names had me completely fooled for a long time.
Although I changed the key name in my patch, let's change the key names in your patch as well.
I notice the KControl Session Manager module includes a group box named "On Login." Why don't we place the new group box just below that group box and call the new group "On Logout"?
Darrell
I was going to stick to Logout. I think that makes the most sense. I'd even be up for changing On Login to just Login.
over complications just erks me. All names should be relatively obvious what they do. If they aren't they should be obvious enough from the dialogs (except in the unfortunate cases where they were never exposed)
Calvin
I was going to stick to Logout. I think that makes the most sense. I'd even be up for changing On Login to just Login.
over complications just erks me. All names should be relatively obvious what they do. If they aren't they should be obvious enough from the dialogs (except in the unfortunate cases where they were never exposed)
Let's not change the "On Login" unless you can translate all of the po files and tde-18n docbook files accordingly. :) That is a problem I ran into with the KControl changes I started. I had to revert the change from "Peripherals" to "Hardware" because changing all of the po files, and the docbook translations, was insurmountable.
The "On Logout" terminology is consistent with what exists and will be familiar to users. I won't fight but I prefer we go with "On Logout" for the new group box.
I appreciate your sentiment but writing like Hemingway won't help here. :)
Darrell
On Sunday 08 of April 2012 10:17:16 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I was going to stick to Logout. I think that makes the most sense. I'd even be up for changing On Login to just Login.
over complications just erks me. All names should be relatively obvious what they do. If they aren't they should be obvious enough from the dialogs (except in the unfortunate cases where they were never exposed)
Let's not change the "On Login" unless you can translate all of the po files and tde-18n docbook files accordingly. :) That is a problem I ran into with the KControl changes I started. I had to revert the change from "Peripherals" to "Hardware" because changing all of the po files, and the docbook translations, was insurmountable.
The "On Logout" terminology is consistent with what exists and will be familiar to users. I won't fight but I prefer we go with "On Logout" for the new group box.
I appreciate your sentiment but writing like Hemingway won't help here. :)
Darrell
I agree with the "On Login" and "On Logout". But the "Feedback" I would rather turned into something else. This is how it makes me feel like a dialog box with a field where the user can enter some feedback.
Slávek --
I agree with the "On Login" and "On Logout". But the "Feedback" I would rather turned into something else. This is how it makes me feel like a dialog box with a field where the user can enter some feedback.
What name or description do you propose? Let's decide now while we can. :)
Currently I have:
| | Show feedback dialog
Change to?
| | Show progress dialog | | Show status dialog | | Show ??? dialog
Darrell
On Sunday 08 of April 2012 19:35:04 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I agree with the "On Login" and "On Logout". But the "Feedback" I would rather turned into something else. This is how it makes me feel like a dialog box with a field where the user can enter some feedback.
What name or description do you propose? Let's decide now while we can. :)
Currently I have: | | Show feedback dialog
Change to?
| | Show progress dialog | | Show status dialog | | Show ??? dialog
Darrell
What do instead of "show" talk directly about "hide"?
For example: | | Conceal logout process
Slávek --
What name or description do you propose? Let's decide
now while we can. :)
Currently I have: | | Show feedback dialog
Change to?
| | Show progress dialog | | Show status dialog | | Show ??? dialog
What do instead of "show" talk directly about "hide"?
For example: | | Conceal logout process
Okay. Getting closer, perhaps. :) How about:
| | Hide logout progress dialog
or
| | Hide logout progress
Darrell
On Wednesday 11 of April 2012 02:59:30 Darrell Anderson wrote:
What name or description do you propose? Let's decide
now while we can. :)
Currently I have: | | Show feedback dialog
Change to?
| | Show progress dialog | | Show status dialog | | Show ??? dialog
What do instead of "show" talk directly about "hide"?
For example: | | Conceal logout process
Okay. Getting closer, perhaps. :) How about: | | Hide logout progress dialog
or
| | Hide logout progress
Darrell
This is difficult.
"Hide logout progress dialog" would be like earlier useFancyLogout = false.
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
Slávek --
This is difficult.
"Hide logout progress dialog" would be like earlier useFancyLogout = false.
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
Let's try this:
| | Show logout progress
Darrell
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Darrell Anderson napsal(a):
This is difficult.
"Hide logout progress dialog" would be like earlier useFancyLogout = false.
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
Let's try this: | | Show logout progress
Darrell
From this I would not know whether I will see the >>process<< of logout (thus closing the windows, and so on), or dialog, which it covers and does not show any >>progress<< :)
Under the "progress" I understand something, where I see a progress bar. Like in the splash screen. But the dialog covering logout have no progress bar. From "progress" in the switch title, I simply confused.
That's why I wanted to "progress" to get away.
Slávek --
This is difficult.
"Hide logout progress dialog" would be like earlier useFancyLogout = false.
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
Let's try this: | | Show logout progress
From this I would not know whether I will see the
process<< of logout (thus closing the windows, and so on), or dialog, which it
covers and does not show any >>progress<< :)
Under the "progress" I understand something, where I see a progress bar. Like in the splash screen. But the dialog covering logout have no progress bar. From "progress" in the switch title, I simply confused.
That's why I wanted to "progress" to get away.
How about
| | Show logout dialog
Darrell
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Darrell Anderson napsal(a):
This is difficult.
"Hide logout progress dialog" would be like earlier useFancyLogout = false.
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
Let's try this: | | Show logout progress
From this I would not know whether I will see the
process<< of logout (thus closing the windows, and so on), or dialog, which it
covers and does not show any >>progress<< :)
Under the "progress" I understand something, where I see a progress bar. Like in the splash screen. But the dialog covering logout have no progress bar. From "progress" in the switch title, I simply confused.
That's why I wanted to "progress" to get away.
How about
| | Show logout dialog
Darrell
I would say that this may give the impression of a dialog box for closing session - logout, reboot, shutdown,... :)
Slávek --
That's why I wanted to "progress" to get away.
How about
| | Show logout dialog
I would say that this may give the impression of a dialog box for closing session - logout, reboot, shutdown,... :)
I'm out of ideas....
Darrell
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Darrell Anderson napsal(a):
This is difficult.
"Hide logout progress dialog" would be like earlier useFancyLogout = false.
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
Let's try this: | | Show logout progress
From this I would not know whether I will see the
process<< of logout (thus closing the windows, and so on), or dialog, which it
covers and does not show any >>progress<< :)
Under the "progress" I understand something, where I see a progress bar. Like in the splash screen. But the dialog covering logout have no progress bar. From "progress" in the switch title, I simply confused.
That's why I wanted to "progress" to get away.
How about
| | Show logout dialog
Darrell
How about
| | Show logout process simplified
Slávek --
How about
| | Show logout dialog
How about
| | Show logout process simplified
Okay, but doesn't sound quite right in English. :) This sounds better in English:
| | Show simplified logout process
or
| | Show simplified logout process dialog
or, because Calvin :) dislikes verbosity:
| | Show logout process dialog
Darrell
On 04/11/2012 02:43 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
How about
| | Show logout dialog
How about
| | Show logout process simplified
Okay, but doesn't sound quite right in English. :) This sounds better in English:
| | Show simplified logout process
or
| | Show simplified logout process dialog
or, because Calvin :) dislikes verbosity:
| | Show logout process dialog
Darrell
Verbosity is bad when it inflicts ambiguity. In this case I think we need need to be more verbose so we can be very specific about what we are showing. Unfortunately often I see very ambiguous settings that do not describe very well what they do. This is probably because people who are writing code are not usually technical writers or documenters. Those people would be better suited to picking names and config option titles.
We need to be unambiguous, and do it by being terse.
Calvin
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Darrell Anderson napsal(a):
Okay, but doesn't sound quite right in English. :) This sounds better in
English:
| | Show simplified logout process
or
| | Show simplified logout process dialog
or, because Calvin :) dislikes verbosity: | | Show logout process dialog
Darrell
I'm not a native english speaker. A programming language I learned more easily than "human". :)
Yes, this sounds good for me | | Show simplified logout process
"dialog" would deliberately not mentioned there.
Slávek --
I'm not a native english speaker. A programming language I learned more easily than "human". :)
Yes, I know. That is why I'm trying to work with you on this. The text will be translated to other languages and we have to keep that in mind.
Yes, this sounds good for me | | Show simplified logout process
"dialog" would deliberately not mentioned there.
Calvin?
Darrell
On 04/11/2012 03:03 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
I'm not a native english speaker. A programming language I learned more easily than "human". :)
Yes, I know. That is why I'm trying to work with you on this. The text will be translated to other languages and we have to keep that in mind.
Yes, this sounds good for me | | Show simplified logout process
"dialog" would deliberately not mentioned there.
Calvin?
Err I'm sorry I'm a bit confused,
what does this option do exactly?
Is it the "saving your settings, trinity is logging out" dialog?
[ ] Show logout status dialog
might be better if that is the case... unless i'm off track
Calvin
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Calvin Morrison napsal(a):
Err I'm sorry I'm a bit confused,
what does this option do exactly?
Is it the "saving your settings, trinity is logging out" dialog?
[ ] Show logout status dialog
might be better if that is the case... unless i'm off track
Calvin
Yes - well - "logout status" is an excellent name for this dialog! With this name it does not conflict with the classic "logout dialog". Nice work. Variable in the configuration file should be called the same.
Calvin, a pity that this proposal did not come sooner :)
Slávek --
Is it the "saving your settings, trinity is logging
out" dialog?
[ ] Show logout status dialog
might be better if that is the case... unless i'm off
track
Yes - well - "logout status" is an excellent name for this dialog! With this name it does not conflict with the classic "logout dialog". Nice work. Variable in the configuration file should be called the same.
Calvin, a pity that this proposal did not come sooner :)
Done!
Darrell
[ ] Show logout status dialog
Yes - well - "logout status" is an excellent name for this dialog!
Done!
I updated the patch (attachment) in the bug report. Here is a screen grab of the current patch:
http://humanreadable.nfshost.com/trinity/build_logs/shutdown.png
The location should change when Calvin finishes his patch because the "Show logout status dialog" check box should be grouped with the new "Show gray fading effect" and slider controls in a new group called "On Logout".
Darrell
On 04/11/2012 03:19 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Calvin Morrison napsal(a):
Err I'm sorry I'm a bit confused,
what does this option do exactly?
Is it the "saving your settings, trinity is logging out" dialog?
[ ] Show logout status dialog
might be better if that is the case... unless i'm off track
Calvin
Yes - well - "logout status" is an excellent name for this dialog! With this name it does not conflict with the classic "logout dialog". Nice work. Variable in the configuration file should be called the same.
Calvin, a pity that this proposal did not come sooner :)
Slávek
I am glad you approve. Here is the process for coming up with it.
X. What are we talking about Y. What type of widget or option is it Z. What does this widget or option do.
Examples:
[ ] Show X Logout Y Status Y Dialog
[ ] Enable X Konqueror Y Download Z Progress Bar
A bit juvenile, but the 5W's come to mind: Who, what, where, when, and why? We should be thinking about those 5W's when creating these options.
Calvin
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Calvin Morrison napsal(a):
On 04/11/2012 03:19 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
Dne st 11. dubna 2012 Calvin Morrison napsal(a):
Err I'm sorry I'm a bit confused,
what does this option do exactly?
Is it the "saving your settings, trinity is logging out" dialog?
[ ] Show logout status dialog
might be better if that is the case... unless i'm off track
Calvin
Yes - well - "logout status" is an excellent name for this dialog! With this name it does not conflict with the classic "logout dialog". Nice work. Variable in the configuration file should be called the same.
Calvin, a pity that this proposal did not come sooner :)
Slávek
I am glad you approve. Here is the process for coming up with it.
X. What are we talking about Y. What type of widget or option is it Z. What does this widget or option do.
Examples:
[ ] Show X Logout Y Status Y Dialog
[ ] Enable X Konqueror Y Download Z Progress Bar
A bit juvenile, but the 5W's come to mind: Who, what, where, when, and why? We should be thinking about those 5W's when creating these options.
Calvin
We are stuck on two things: Show × Hide: logout status dialog does not display "anything useful" - on the contrary is a side effect of hiding Process × Progress: logout status dialogue shows no progress, just the opposite process hides.
Therefore, we are still trying to find either the name for this dialog, or find the name for that process. Before you helped find a name for this dialog.
Slávek --
On 04/10/2012 08:11 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
I LIKE useFancyLogout :) That's my vote for default...
While "Hide logout process" (process × progress) would
be like earlier useFancyLogout = true. That's how I intended to.
I LIKE useFancyLogout :) That's my vote for default...
Slavek and I are discussing the text string viewed in KControl. Basically, what do we call this dialog that appears and how do we phrase the check box text string in KControl?
Currently my patch says "Show feedback dialog."
The key names used in the ksmserverrc config file are more confusing. Currently there is showFancyLogout and doFancyLogout, which address two different functions. The former controls the dialog and the latter controls the gray fade effect. To avoid confusion, Calvin and I want to change the key names in ksmserverrc as well as in the code. Read the discussion in bug report 258 for details.
Slavek and I want to change the text string in KControl to be understandable to most users.
Calvin is adding the controls for the gray effect. The underlying code has always existed but no controls ever existed in KControl. Likewise, the underlying controls for the dialog exist but no check box in KControl.
When both sets of controls are added, users need to be able to distinguish between the two. The controls Calvin is adding will have the words "gray" and "fade" in the descriptions but that leaves the other dialog to describe.
Part of the problem is the dialog does not show any progress bar/thermometer. Second, although the dialog supports other text strings (read the sources), most users only see the one message of "Saving your settings...." If users saw other text strings within the dialog (which they would if they have other features enabled), then the dialog would seem less lacking.
Part of the problem is words don't always translate will to other languages.
Not to mention that after all of this is settled, the code calling the dialog contains a bug that prevents saving open documents (bug report 922), which demands attention before R14. The only known work-around at this time is to disable the dialog from showing, which without the check box can be performed only by editing the config file.
Little things that snowball into headaches. Sometimes my head hurts....
Darrell
I appreciate your sentiment but writing like Hemingway won't help here. :)
That last line probably does not come across the way I intended. Ernest Hemingway was known for short, terse sentences in his writings. A minimalist.
While I tend toward minimalism and efficiency, sometimes an extra word is challenging to avoid or meaning is lost. I have been providing technical writing services for more than two decades. Almost always I struggle for appropriate words. Participating in projects like Trinity and providing technical help in discussion forums has helped me become more aware that communicating is more challenging than most people admit. This is noticeably true with translating to other languages.
Darrell
On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
I added a KControl check box control for the shutdown
feedback dialog. The one that says "Saving your settings" when logging out.
The underlying support already existed. The check box
merely adds a direct way for users to show or disable the dialog box.
The patch provides nominal temporary relief against bug
report 922: "When logging out with unsaved file, trinity does not ask to save it," (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=922). Currently the only solution to that bug is a work-around of disabling the feedback dialog.
The patch is available through bug report 681 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=681).
Please test. Upon receiving a successful report I'll
push to GIT.
Thanks for helping. :)
Tested in 3.5.13 - works well - signoff from me.
Okay, thanks!
Before pushing to GIT I want to wait until Calvin finishes his patch for bug report 258. The check box added with this patch should be in the same group box in KControl with his patch.
Darrell
Darrell,
Just tried building with patch and I received a KCInit error on startup - no desktop - (the main window was there, but no kicker, no desktop icons, etc..) downgraded to unpatched filed and it worked great. I don't know which patch did this, but we will need to investigate.
I have saved the xsession-errors file. It will take digesting, but I did notice the new tdebase was nearly 9M larger than the last. Dunno why. I'll look more tomorrow. Let's test some more before pushing.
Just tried building with patch and I received a KCInit error on startup - no desktop - (the main window was there, but no kicker, no desktop icons, etc..) downgraded to unpatched filed and it worked great. I don't know which patch did this, but we will need to investigate.
I have saved the xsession-errors file. It will take digesting, but I did notice the new tdebase was nearly 9M larger than the last. Dunno why. I'll look more tomorrow. Let's test some more before pushing.
Sounds like something else happened. This is a small patch, even for a noob like me and only affects KControl. Any crashing would be limited to running KControl. I can't conceive of how the limited patch could cause a 9 MB increase in package size.
Darrell
On 04/08/2012 01:54 AM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
Sounds like something else happened. This is a small patch, even for a noob like me and only affects KControl. Any crashing would be limited to running KControl. I can't conceive of how the limited patch could cause a 9 MB increase in package size.
Darrell
I can't either - I hope this isn't another gcc 4.7 issue causing failures in the finished packages. But the size difference was surprising. Slow weekend for making progress. Somehow family holidays have a way of impacting the time available. I built tdebase exactly the same as I had 6 days ago and I expected the new package to be a one-for-one replacement for the current tdebase. I was quite surprised to get the desktop crash.
I compressed the xsession-errors file [26k] and made it available for anyone interested here:
http://www.3111skyline.com/dl/dt/tde/err/tdebase/kcminit-xsession.txt.xz
I can't either - I hope this isn't another gcc 4.7 issue causing failures in the finished packages. But the size difference was surprising. Slow weekend for making progress. Somehow family holidays have a way of impacting the time available. I built tdebase exactly the same as I had 6 days ago and I expected the new package to be a one-for-one replacement for the current tdebase. I was quite surprised to get the desktop crash.
I compressed the xsession-errors file [26k] and made it available for anyone interested here:
http://www.3111skyline.com/dl/dt/tde/err/tdebase/kcminit-xsession.txt.xz
What happens when you rename your existing profile directory and start with a fresh profile?
What happens when you delete the ksycoca cache? I do this quite frequently when testing. I start X from the command line and this is easy to do. More than a few times deleting the cache solved weird problems.
Darrell
-
Calvin Morrison -
Darrell Anderson -
David C. Rankin -
Slávek Banko