Rox and desktop files: how to display Comment[fr]
Ahhh, what mikeb can do on a full stomach!!!
Magnificent! Fantastic! How can we ever repay you! Wow! Yippee!
Many, many thanks! (Background noise of audience applauding... fade-out)
Magnificent! Fantastic! How can we ever repay you! Wow! Yippee!
Many, many thanks! (Background noise of audience applauding... fade-out)
- Attachments
-
- Absolutely_Terrific!!!_2015-04-06.jpg
- (63.49 KiB) Downloaded 333 times
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
- LazY Puppy
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Fri 21 Nov 2014, 18:14
- Location: Germany
To come back on this... never mind the translations. You're doing fine.mikeb wrote:fichiers Desktop sont très exigeantes
don't blame me though my translation was worse...
I don't want to pass out while compiling.... please don't hold any breath during this food related pause
Actually i will slip a note into the version output to distinguish the build.
mike
I'm more concerned about the other entries of the *.desktop files:
almost no one writes a *.desktop file that is standard compliant.
Added:
In particular, every one is trying to impose his/her own idea of
"Categories". And this brings chaos, my friend, worse: a real mess.
Even at the level of the standards committee.
For example, you can tell that none of the members there is or has ever
been a musician: the purely musical or sound programs should be in the
Audio category only, not merged inside the "AudioVideo" category.
Etc. etc., etc. Lack of logic all around.
We should open a separate thread about this mess.
BFN.
musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
- L18L
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2010, 18:56
- Location: www.eussenheim.de/
Rox and desktop files
A big Thank You also from me.
(If you are bored you can add similiar things with GenericName and Comment to JWM menu.)
I think Barry, Mick, James, woof, etc. ...... will get them (and compile for 64 bit).
___
EDIT
changed jwm_menu_create to JWM menu
The topic is SOLVED by you.mikeb wrote:So nothing else to do then for now...
(If you are bored you can add similiar things with GenericName and Comment to JWM menu.)
or the patch file?mikeb wrote:... anyone want the sources...or at least the altered file?
I think Barry, Mick, James, woof, etc. ...... will get them (and compile for 64 bit).
___
EDIT
changed jwm_menu_create to JWM menu
Ah a patch file..the ultimate weapon of confusion.
Well you have filer.c and main.c needs altering to not show the running as root message.
Actually how is rox obtained for official puppy making...is there a build package or is it compiled each time and if so from what? main.c must be hacked for starters
I used the 2.11 download from ROX website...
I also could build for 2.10 which runs on gtk 2.8 + ..at least its working on puppy 4.12.
Mike
Well you have filer.c and main.c needs altering to not show the running as root message.
Actually how is rox obtained for official puppy making...is there a build package or is it compiled each time and if so from what? main.c must be hacked for starters
I used the 2.11 download from ROX website...
I also could build for 2.10 which runs on gtk 2.8 + ..at least its working on puppy 4.12.
Mike
I can't say for contemporary puppies, but for Fatdog it is built from source from the latest git master (https://github.com/rox-desktop/rox-filer); with my own patches applied, using automated build script. So I don't depend on pre-built binary or pre-patched source, instead I apply the patches on vanilla sources as needed and then build it. I know that Quirky April follows the same method as well but using T2 as the build system.mikeb wrote:Actually how is rox obtained for official puppy making...is there a build package or is it compiled each time and if so from what? main.c must be hacked for starters
----
To make the patch, do this:
1. Assume your modified version of rox 2.11 is stored in /mnt/sdb1/work/rox-2.11
2. Rename it to /mnt/sdb1/work/rox-2.11-new
3. Re-extract the original rox-filer to /mnt/sdb1/work/rox-2.11
4. Then, cd to /mnt/sdb1/work
5. and then "diff -ur rox-2.11 rox-2.11-new > $HOME/rox.patch"
(the patch created this way is a bit "dirty" but is usable). And you can ship the patch to me
Alternatively, just make a tarball of your build directory and upload it somewhere; since you told me that it is build from rox 2.11 I can do the steps above myself. Once done I am happy to share the patch with the rest of us.
cheers!
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]
Well the rox sources are a little unconventional plus there seem to be many variations floating around so not 100% on what's best in this case really.
Simplest way for now
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s4ettwe6jiho ... Y77Ia?dl=1
Apart from needing to include i18n.h all changes are in the one function tip_from_desktop_file
I actually have a build from debian on one system and its layout has such as /usr/bin/rox for binary and /usr/share/rox for its data rather than the self contained apprun job usually found... did find it less confusing actually.
By the way you may wish to adjust my comments.. I normally don't get to share source changes cos no one wants them
mike
Simplest way for now
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s4ettwe6jiho ... Y77Ia?dl=1
Apart from needing to include i18n.h all changes are in the one function tip_from_desktop_file
I actually have a build from debian on one system and its layout has such as /usr/bin/rox for binary and /usr/share/rox for its data rather than the self contained apprun job usually found... did find it less confusing actually.
By the way you may wish to adjust my comments.. I normally don't get to share source changes cos no one wants them
mike
Thanks Mike. Btw Fatdog own patches are in http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/source/700/patches; there are 3 patches for rox filer (applicable to the latest git master) for anyone who want it.
EDIT:
Mikeb's patch attached. I also re-write the patch and put my version here.
cheers!
EDIT:
Mikeb's patch attached. I also re-write the patch and put my version here.
cheers!
- Attachments
-
- mikeb.patch.gz
- (1.14 KiB) Downloaded 404 times
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]
Not me.mikeb wrote:So first I get a boat, now I have a patch....anyone got a wooden leg and a parrot handy?
mike
No parrot, only a budgie, once.
But I have a few pronunciation exercises, like: arr, arr, arr. (repeat 5x)
Also a long library shelf made of plywood that you could use as a plank.
Arm-hooks are not your style, I gather. Will destroy a keyboard in no time, shucks.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
Back to serious:
Anybody noticed interference between the wm and mikeb's modd'ed ROX?
Under wmx (yeah, I know, musher0's always off-off-Broadway...), it seems
that wmx-8 takes over the modded ROX after 3-4 minutes, and I can't click
on any ROX icon. Just the wmx menus appear.
Working with jwm and modd'ed ROX appears ok, AFAICT.
BFN.
musher0
Anybody noticed interference between the wm and mikeb's modd'ed ROX?
Under wmx (yeah, I know, musher0's always off-off-Broadway...), it seems
that wmx-8 takes over the modded ROX after 3-4 minutes, and I can't click
on any ROX icon. Just the wmx menus appear.
Working with jwm and modd'ed ROX appears ok, AFAICT.
BFN.
musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
serious ... this is the puppy linux forum isn't it
Hmm curious..something that works better with jwm.
Well I did free that which should be freed but there may be other patches applied to the rox in puppy but otherwise cannot think of a reason offhand.
I used 2.11 ...check what version you had with ROX-filer -v
I assume the rox you had was ok with wmx?
If I find anything I will report.
mike
Hmm curious..something that works better with jwm.
Well I did free that which should be freed but there may be other patches applied to the rox in puppy but otherwise cannot think of a reason offhand.
I used 2.11 ...check what version you had with ROX-filer -v
I assume the rox you had was ok with wmx?
If I find anything I will report.
mike