Description of problem: In F7 gnome-panel was shipped with "gnome-panel-2.16.0-compiz-support.patch" which made it possible to change the number of view ports in compiz using the pager and also looked differently (no separators). In F8 the patch is dropped and the user experience with it is worse. The patch does not apply as is (tried to rebase it but it seems that the glade file changed completely) Can this patch be ported to gnome-panel-2.20 and enabled again in the builds?
Ok I managed to port the patch to 2.20, I will attach both a patch to the specfile and one the updated gnome-panel-compiz-support patch. I tested it and it seems to work fine (both with metacity and compiz).
Created attachment 254401 [details] gnome-panel.spec patch This patches the gnome-panel.spec file to apply the new patch.
Created attachment 254411 [details] gnome-panel-2.20.1-compiz-support.patch This is the updated patch that apply, builds and runs fine to 2.20.1.
We don't want to keep patching compiz functionality into the panel. The right cause of action is to get these improvements into the upstream panel code.
thats true but we can't just silently drop a feature from release to release (i.e introduce a regression). Can we add this patch to the f8 release and try to get it upstream for f9 ? I doubt upstream will accept a patch like this for a 2.20.x release but its more likely for 2.22.
So, I'm definitely against having a lot of patches that diverge from upstream. On the other hand, we normally file an upstream bug report when we add a patch and wait for upstream to respond. If they approve of the patch it gets upstreamed, if they don't we drop the patch from our rpm. Apparently that didn't happen this time around? I'm guessing the patch was never submitted upstream and was eventually dropped when it stopped applying. drago01, since you've already done the footwork to bring the patch back, would you mind pushing it out as an F8 update? We should definitely try to get the patch upstream this time too...
(In reply to comment #6) > So, I'm definitely against having a lot of patches that diverge from upstream. > > On the other hand, we normally file an upstream bug report when we add a patch > and wait for upstream to respond. If they approve of the patch it gets > upstreamed, if they don't we drop the patch from our rpm. > Who wrote the original patch? Shouldn't the author fill the upstream bug? If not I can do this too if nobody else (which is more involved upstream than I am) want to do it. > > drago01, since you've already done the footwork to bring the patch back, would > you mind pushing it out as an F8 update? Ok, working on it. > We should definitely try to get the patch upstream this time too... +1
krh, did you do the original patch? If no one else wants to file the upstream report I can do it.
gnome-panel-2.20.1-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-panel'
gnome-panel-2.20.1-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.