[CLOSED]JWM Desktop Updates to V755(Release) and V910(Test)
@anikin, no, it's an all or none as I understand it.
@'f00, Nice idea, I have passed your request into his system, using centre-click for m2 and right-click for m3.
EDIT: he loves the idea, it will appear soon, maybe I shall hold off building his next test one until it appears, however 700 does still need testing to confirm the screen resizing problem has finally gone!
EDIT2: he loved it that much it's already done, as 702, I shall build and test tonight and all being well replace 700 with 702 tomorrow for further testing before updating the release build in a week if no problems ocurr!
@'f00, Nice idea, I have passed your request into his system, using centre-click for m2 and right-click for m3.
EDIT: he loves the idea, it will appear soon, maybe I shall hold off building his next test one until it appears, however 700 does still need testing to confirm the screen resizing problem has finally gone!
EDIT2: he loved it that much it's already done, as 702, I shall build and test tonight and all being well replace 700 with 702 tomorrow for further testing before updating the release build in a week if no problems ocurr!
Understood. I'm not going to pass judgement on Joe's decisions.scsijon wrote:@anikin, no, it's an all or none as I understand it.
Scsijon, this thread is a testing platform for JWM, if I get it right. Here's a graet idea, pursuant to my previous post. Can we expand the testing to see how JWM works if compiled without support for menu icons? Something, that hasn't been done yet? This will definitely put extra load on you to produce an additional compilation, but will also be of benifit to the community. Although, I must confess, I'm driven by a selfish interest here. An iconless menu can be done manually, and I've done it: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 120#666120
The result I would like to see in the compilation is a clean iconless menu, and at the same time, retain the possibility to have icons in the tray and desktop. Could be a tediuos process, but as `f00 put it: "Likely it would run a bit leaner." And what can be a better reward for a user, than a "bit leaner" running puppy?
I did a compile with --disable-icons.
It gets rid of menu icons, and tray buttons. (they are missing on the screenshot on the left of the tray - I had installed Mick's pet).
'Swallowed' apps remain.
Desktop icons are part of the Rox pinboard.
It gets rid of menu icons, and tray buttons. (they are missing on the screenshot on the left of the tray - I had installed Mick's pet).
'Swallowed' apps remain.
Desktop icons are part of the Rox pinboard.
- Attachments
-
- jwm-no_icons.jpg
- (19.18 KiB) Downloaded 1309 times
Anikin
I just did it to see what happened with icons disabled. Unfortunately the current version will not compile with '--disable-icons', so I used an earlier one.
These are the errors I get after running make:
I just did it to see what happened with icons disabled. Unfortunately the current version will not compile with '--disable-icons', so I used an earlier one.
These are the errors I get after running make:
Code: Select all
# make
cd src ; make all ; cd ..
make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/sda2/Downloads/Window-Managers/JWM/CURRENT/jwm-master/src'
gcc -c -g -O2 -I/usr/X11R7/include -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/X11R7/include -I/usr/X11R7/include -I/usr/include/fribidi -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" background.c
background.c:307:35: error: macro "LoadNamedIcon" passed 2 arguments, but takes just 1
background.c: In function ‘LoadImageBackground’:
background.c:307: error: ‘LoadNamedIcon’ undeclared (first use in this function)
background.c:307: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
background.c:307: error: for each function it appears in.)
make[1]: *** [background.o] Error 1
I have to admit that as much as I love my icons that sure is a handsome screenshot there of JWM Keef! Very impressive indeed! Thanks for sharing that shot, but as for myself I'll pass on the exe itself as I'm one - unlike anikin - who MUST have his icons if the WM calls for it by default. lol.
I suppose that's kind of odd though just the same seeing that I prefer my Flux/Openbox in their "natural state" to begin with.
Again Keef, thanks for sharing!
Cheers/Amicalement,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acaadie"
I suppose that's kind of odd though just the same seeing that I prefer my Flux/Openbox in their "natural state" to begin with.
Again Keef, thanks for sharing!
Cheers/Amicalement,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acaadie"
*~*~*~*~*~*
Proud user of LXpup and 3-Headed Dog.
*~*~*~*~*~*
Proud user of LXpup and 3-Headed Dog.
*~*~*~*~*~*
@anikin, it's both a testing platform and at suitable stages an 'internal release' as is v691. Major releases come in steps like 2.0 2.1, 2.2 with 2.2 being the current major release but that's a year old now and a lot has happened since. I don't expect another major release until joe has decided it is time to stop for a while.
@keef, you can get rid of the swallowed apps by commenting the section that sets them up near the top of the /root/.jwmc-tray config file
I will have a look at building an iconless jwm, it shouldn't be that hard to sort out, and would have a name something like jwm2-iconless-702-w5c. Although i'm not sure there would be much saving as icons are called as wanted, not within jwm on the desktop.
Anyway I had best get 702 built and tested and out there.
EDIT: no 702 hasn't given the desired result.
EDIT2: --disable-icons problem confirmed and added into the jwm problems list for attention as it's not a simple configure change to fix it as I had hoped.
@keef, you can get rid of the swallowed apps by commenting the section that sets them up near the top of the /root/.jwmc-tray config file
I will have a look at building an iconless jwm, it shouldn't be that hard to sort out, and would have a name something like jwm2-iconless-702-w5c. Although i'm not sure there would be much saving as icons are called as wanted, not within jwm on the desktop.
Anyway I had best get 702 built and tested and out there.
EDIT: no 702 hasn't given the desired result.
EDIT2: --disable-icons problem confirmed and added into the jwm problems list for attention as it's not a simple configure change to fix it as I had hoped.
JWM keybindings focus
I don't know if this is a bug or just the way JWM focuses on things:
If I open a window and then minimize it, JWM keybindings will not work until I unminimize said window or open a new window.
So, say I right-click the minimized window in the tray and close it... then keybindings won't work until I open another application.
If I open a window and then minimize it, JWM keybindings will not work until I unminimize said window or open a new window.
So, say I right-click the minimized window in the tray and close it... then keybindings won't work until I open another application.
[color=green]Primary[/color] - Intel Pentium 4 2.40GHz, 571MB RAM, ATI Radeon 7000. Linux Mint 17 Qiana installed.
[color=blue]Secondary[/color] - Pentium 3 533MHz, 385MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 Pro ULTRA TF. Precise Puppy 5.7.1 Retro full install.
[color=blue]Secondary[/color] - Pentium 3 533MHz, 385MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 Pro ULTRA TF. Precise Puppy 5.7.1 Retro full install.
Re: JWM keybindings focus
Don't think that should happen, I will put a problem in the system for it.session wrote:I don't know if this is a bug or just the way JWM focuses on things:
If I open a window and then minimize it, JWM keybindings will not work until I unminimize said window or open a new window.
So, say I right-click the minimized window in the tray and close it... then keybindings won't work until I open another application.
EDIT: I will receive a new version today to test.
@Keef: It should include a fix for the --disable-icons, already fixed we think, but I'm reluctant to download and test two versions on the same day.
It should be out for wider testing tomorrow, if not tonight.
@all: There will be two test versions out from the next time:
a) jwm2-70x-w5c - being a standard package; and,
b) jwm2-noicons-70x-w5c - being built without icon support.
If they work they will both be released, but they do need testing first by a number of people, so please spread the request.
EDIT: 704 tested with both versions and requests now ok, but another problem has reared it's head so I won't release the result yet, less I confuse folks.
It seems to have speeded up a little bit again too, I can't look away to see what's next now before the next window has appeared and is running.
window control via..
1) window menu or tasklist-button menu - this seems to be the most robust
2) kybd - less robust
3) titlebar buttons - even less than kybd sometimes, mostly with multifunction like min-m3 shade
..this is with xcompmgr -n loaded, in normal use controls are all fine for me
kybd control..
Only 'standard' kybd binds (those in template) show in the ui. Possibility of conflict with custom binds in *personal - example A+F4 is standard for close, C+q in my personal .. they both do the job unless I comment-out or change the bind in the template.
layer conflict possible?
If both window and tray are 'above', which one takes precedence? Personally I almost never have this happen (windows 'normal' and trays on autohide popup 'above' when hovered).
virtual desktops
Took me awhile to get that jwm uses 'discreet' desktops (rather than the viewport or even combined model used in some other wms like enlightenment and fvwm). That's why windows can't 'span' desktops .. also why a window can almost 'disappear' if you move it with the kybd to an offscreen position (dragging the titlebar or Alt+m1 limits that effect). With small screens (netbooks and such) this can be somewhat of a minor issue with windows that are larger than the screen size.
other
Pleased that Joe is implementing more multifunction on titlebar buttons
1) window menu or tasklist-button menu - this seems to be the most robust
2) kybd - less robust
3) titlebar buttons - even less than kybd sometimes, mostly with multifunction like min-m3 shade
..this is with xcompmgr -n loaded, in normal use controls are all fine for me
kybd control..
Only 'standard' kybd binds (those in template) show in the ui. Possibility of conflict with custom binds in *personal - example A+F4 is standard for close, C+q in my personal .. they both do the job unless I comment-out or change the bind in the template.
layer conflict possible?
If both window and tray are 'above', which one takes precedence? Personally I almost never have this happen (windows 'normal' and trays on autohide popup 'above' when hovered).
virtual desktops
Took me awhile to get that jwm uses 'discreet' desktops (rather than the viewport or even combined model used in some other wms like enlightenment and fvwm). That's why windows can't 'span' desktops .. also why a window can almost 'disappear' if you move it with the kybd to an offscreen position (dragging the titlebar or Alt+m1 limits that effect). With small screens (netbooks and such) this can be somewhat of a minor issue with windows that are larger than the screen size.
other
Pleased that Joe is implementing more multifunction on titlebar buttons
Keef, or anyone who knows,Keef wrote:Anikin
I just did it to see what happened with icons disabled. Unfortunately the current version will not compile with '--disable-icons', so I used an earlier one.
I'm taking baby steps in compiling, trying to make an iconless JWM. Following to the letter Joe's instructions, everything goes OK, no errors. "make install" as a final command - where do I go from there? Nothing seems to get installed.
Hmm, as I recall there are options to a) make a dotpet as part of the process (see the wiki/compiling) or b) install to a different path (such as /myjwm dir - perhaps even set it up beforehand with appropriate subdirs and the compiled dirs&files should all go there) .. this may be a bit easier than wondering "Did it install?" and/or checking the propsheets for datetimes, etc
Congratulations on error-free compilation
Congratulations on error-free compilation
Last edited by `f00 on Fri 15 Mar 2013, 01:56, edited 1 time in total.
Anikin
What options did you add to 'configure'?
If you just did
..then jwm would be installed to /usr/local/bin (I think that is what it defaults to).
Your current jwm is likely to be in /usr/bin
Type 'which jwm' to check.
What I usually do is to go into the 'src' directory where the newly compiled jwm binary should be, and rename it to jwm-test or something.
Copy it to /usr/bin/
Exit X
Type 'xwin jwm-test' and see what happens.
If it fails (ie you don't get to a desktop), you can type 'xwin jwm' and get back to where you started.
First, you could check if the new jwm got installed to /usr/local/bin.
If it is there, try renaming it as above, then exit X etc...
You can also run 'strip jwm' to reduce the size. It is not necessary, but if you are concerned that the new jwm is much bigger, that is the solution.
What options did you add to 'configure'?
If you just did
Code: Select all
./configure --disable-icons
Your current jwm is likely to be in /usr/bin
Type 'which jwm' to check.
What I usually do is to go into the 'src' directory where the newly compiled jwm binary should be, and rename it to jwm-test or something.
Copy it to /usr/bin/
Exit X
Type 'xwin jwm-test' and see what happens.
If it fails (ie you don't get to a desktop), you can type 'xwin jwm' and get back to where you started.
First, you could check if the new jwm got installed to /usr/local/bin.
If it is there, try renaming it as above, then exit X etc...
You can also run 'strip jwm' to reduce the size. It is not necessary, but if you are concerned that the new jwm is much bigger, that is the solution.
Taskbar scrolling issue
Hesitate to ask, (Joe helped me with the 'noshade' option), but scrolling on the taskbar, if you have popups on the tray, launches many copies of the item scrolled on.Does anyone have any other 'sensible' enhancement requests while we have his attention?
Older fumble fingers do this often, as well as switching desktops. Then I get 'my screen is full of junk' or 'my browser (etc.) disappeared' calls.
My workaround is to only have one desktop & no popups other than the menu, but that excludes some of JWMs nice functions.
Building your own JWM
For anyone wanting to build their own Jwm.
BE AWARE that versions 702 to 704 have other problems relating to "the black screen of death" and "backgrounds" so be careful!
I am awaiting a reply for joe from barryk as I have been asked a question I cannot answer, it needs his level of knowledge.
EDIT: Just had a reply from barryk and passed it onto joe, suspect we will have a new build soon to test.
building your own jwm : myway
and for Anakin, the previous version that is 'good' has other problems, I shall look back and see what the previous 'stable' one was befor the gliphs appeared and let you know.
Have fun.
BE AWARE that versions 702 to 704 have other problems relating to "the black screen of death" and "backgrounds" so be careful!
I am awaiting a reply for joe from barryk as I have been asked a question I cannot answer, it needs his level of knowledge.
EDIT: Just had a reply from barryk and passed it onto joe, suspect we will have a new build soon to test.
building your own jwm : myway
Code: Select all
Presteps
a) Download a version of jwm from [url]http://joewing.net/projects/jwm/snapshots/[/url] the latest is at the bottom of the list.
b)unpack it in the directory you intend building it in.
c)Rename the directory created by the unpack to puppy standard by adding a '2' after the jwm so we know it's a series2 jwm (jwm2-xxx) and not an old series1.
step1
a) Open a terminal console and go to the directory you unpacked the jwm into.
b) Go into the jwm directory created when you unpacked it.
c) ./configure CFLAGS="-mtune=native -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc/xdg/templates --localstatedir=/var
: add --disable-icons to the end if you want to build an iconless version
: look back and see if any errors have appeared thet you need to add another package for before starting the configure again. You may need to reboot before restarting if you have added a package, as some packages need to load on startup.
step2
a) type 'make' and let it run.
: look back and see if any errors have appeared thet you need to add another package for or rebuild.
:at this point I usually go into the directory and delete /etc as mick's jwmconfig2 package contains what we need for puppy and we do not need joe's generic config file!
step3
a) type new2dir make install
: does two things, create a new directory that can be 'pet'd'
: the new2dir is the front end that creates a package suitable to build a pet, while the "make install" installs the build into your system, ***but with no removal path*** .
: By habbit, I usually break out at the last step and use my Pet Maker version 2.2 to finish, but there is no reason why the internal builder should not be used for such a simple package.
Have fun.
Last edited by scsijon on Fri 15 Mar 2013, 02:17, edited 3 times in total.
Here's how it looks in upup precise382. I used the native upup version, which is 574. Perhaps, I should ask scsijon what's the latest usable version without those pointer glyphs and do a recompile. I forgot to run "strip", so it's a bit chubby, but very fast indeed. These are the removed options:
Thank you Keef and `f00 for your help and attention.
Code: Select all
./configure --disable-icons --disable-nls --disable-fribidi --disable-debug
Thank you Keef and `f00 for your help and attention.
- Attachments
-
- iconless_menu.png
- (112.27 KiB) Downloaded 778 times
Re: Building your own JWM
An excellent howto scsijon, thank you very much!scsijon wrote:For anyone wanting to build their own Jwm.
A quick question: the "strip" command as the last step - I noticed you don't use it. Is it a harmless command, will it not strip something, that is needed if/when used?
A quick question: the "strip" command as the last step - I noticed you don't use it. Is it a harmless command, will it not strip something, that is needed if/when used?
/usr/bin/new2dirstep3
a) type new2dir make install
and.....#strip the file...
if [ ! -h "$ONEFILE" ];then #make sure it isn't a symlink
[ ! "`file "$ONEFILE" | grep 'ELF' | grep 'shared object'`" = "" ] && strip --strip-debug "$ONEFILE"
[ ! "`file "$ONEFILE" | grep 'ELF' | grep 'executable'`" = "" ] && strip --strip-unneeded "$ONEFILE"
fi
sync
# make install DESTDIR=/root/jwm
cd src ; make all ; cd ..
make[1]: Entering directory `/root/Downloads/jwm-704/src'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/Downloads/jwm-704/src'
cd po ; make all ; cd ..
make[1]: Entering directory `/root/Downloads/jwm-704/po'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/Downloads/jwm-704/po'
cd src ; make install ; cd ..
make[1]: Entering directory `/root/Downloads/jwm-704/src'
install -d /root/jwm/usr/bin
install jwm /root/jwm/usr/bin/jwm
strip /root/jwm/usr/bin/jwm
so....when compiling and installing jwm...the stripping of binary has been cared by the jwm source code included files.
pemasu, thank you for for the detailed walkthrough.so....when compiling and installing jwm...the stripping of binary has been cared by the jwm source code included files.
One more question: the stripping of binary - is this common practice/requirement, or an exception to the rule, that shows good programming practices of some but not all developers?
Stripping makes binaries and libraries smaller. Most distros strip binaries and libraries. At least those which I have tested. For example Ubuntu and Debian .deb packages come with stripped stuff.
Puppy philosophy is to offer small size with as full usability as possible. Stripping absolutely belongs to that philosophy.
All woof built Puppies and puplets come with stripped binaries and libraries. Woof 3builddistro script takes care of that:
Puppy philosophy is to offer small size with as full usability as possible. Stripping absolutely belongs to that philosophy.
All woof built Puppies and puplets come with stripped binaries and libraries. Woof 3builddistro script takes care of that:
#w481 extra stripping...
if [ "$WOOF_HOSTARCH" = "$WOOF_TARGETARCH" ];then #120502 strip will not work for cross-build.
echo
echo "Would you like to strip all binary executables and shared library files?"
echo "These are usually already stripped, although some packages may have the shared"
echo "library files stripped with the '--strip-debug' option only, and extra stripping"
echo "should be okay. It won't do any harm answering yes here."