Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 194268
gnome-applets - silent but drastic change
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:34 EST
Description of problem:
A changelog for 'gnome-applets' says only this:
* Tue Jun 06 2006 Matthias Clasen <email@example.com> - 2.14.2-3
* Sun May 28 2006 Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 2.14.2-2
- Update to 2.14.2
Actually something much more substantial happened between 2.14.2-2
and 2.14.2-3. Namely everything related to 'mixer_applet2' vanished
from the latest version of that package. This means 32 files and
that looks like the only real difference between those versions.
This, of course, breaks every "normal" desktop where mixer applet
was put on a panel by default. More important this leaves
an access to 'gnome-volume-control' only through a command line
(if one knows what to look for).
Is this just an accident or a deliberate action? In the later
case plain "rebuild" does not seem to reflect reality. And what
is a functional replacement?
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
confirming problem and adding to CC:
If you add the volume control from the main menu, the below dialog message is
The panel encountered a problem while loading "OAFIID:GNOME_MixerApplet".
Same here, since the latest updates.
I was just "happy" I could do the updates since the evolution dependencies were
I'm really bored : do you know that FC5 is also used for professional purpose ?
(50 users here)
There's really a lack of serious in the way you publish official packages
without doing obvious tests.
Lost info from bugzilla outage.
------- Additional Comments From email@example.com 2006-06-13 12:48 EST -------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 194860 ***
Now to see bug 194860
There are references to FC5 here, but this is about the gnome-applets-2.14.2-3
package that was in rawhide for a while, right ?
In this case, it is fixed in later gnome-applets packages.
If this is in fact an FC5 bug, please refile it correctly.
This was about rawhide and it is resolved for quite a while. The single
FC5 reference in comments seems to be a tad confused.