Rox and desktop files: how to display Comment[fr]

For efforts in internationalising Puppy and solving problems in this area
Message
Author
User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#61 Post by mikeb »

http://bkhome.org/sources/alphabetical/r/
ugh...yes a pile of patches i see... would seem like whoever builds rox for 32 bit pups needs to add my tweak perhaps...

mike

edit well since jamesbond has kindly made a patch then whoever is the maintainer bunny needs to merge it into the build... get yer swords ready.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#62 Post by mikeb »

Hmm just noticed the owner and group on the Rox binary is ftp:ftp ...wonder if that has an effect...indeed the sources i was using all have weird and wonderful ownership which was having a strange affects on the Rox apps folder.

Weird bleeding sources in general.

Mike

Keisha
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2014, 05:43

on compiling rox-filer

#63 Post by Keisha »

By chance I was rummaging through the rox website http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/home.html and then happened upon this thread. That rox desktop Find command is nifty. Nice way to get Xara Extreme too.

I downloaded the rox-filer source by

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/rox-desktop/rox-filer.git
and then copied the main.c and filer.c from mikeb into src, overwriting the originals; then did

Code: Select all

./AppRun --compile
and thus obtained a shiny new Rox-Filer for my DebianDog, screencap below.

The "Dnotify support... No" part does not worry me, because Inotify supersedes it. Might be a problem on distro's made prior to the switchover, say mid-2006.

Of direct relevance to musher0's problem, however, might be the "Binary compatibility... No (apsymbols.h not found)" notification.

A bit of googling turns up the fact that the "binary compatibility" being spoken of is "GTK binary compatibility" --it seems that the rox I compiled might have issues on machines running earlier versions of libgtk-x11-2.0 than the libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.2400.25 which I see in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu on this machine, according to this webpage:
http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/node/289

To plug a rox from one distro into another which uses an older version of libgtk-x11-2.0 is likely to give problems, unless rox was compiled "with gtk binary (backwards) compatibility" according to the guidelines on that webpage.

I must say, upgrading to this freshly-compiled rox 2.11 in DebianDog Jessie makes a noticeable difference in the speed with which rox does everything.
Attachments
2015-04-08-024923_746x363_scrot.png
a shiny new rox in DebianDog
(43.58 KiB) Downloaded 561 times
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.â€￾ --Bruce Lee

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#64 Post by mikeb »

Hmm yes that does seem to be about backward compatibility.

I build on Lucid with gtk 2.20 so may not have any impact in that respect with musher's problem.

There is mention of a focus patch in that bundle but without trawling through them its hard to say if anything is relevant...indeed this could be a new rox/wmx problem that has been highlighted.

Again who builds these roxes?
I have no connection with the devs here so my input is limited.

mike

Keisha
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2014, 05:43

#65 Post by Keisha »

mikeb wrote:...I build on Lucid with gtk 2.20 so may not have any impact in that respect with musher's problem...There is mention of a focus patch in that bundle...
Ah, I see. Both jamesbond and BarryK have several patches for rox-filer.

@musher: what Puppy are you running?
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.â€￾ --Bruce Lee

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#66 Post by musher0 »

mikeb wrote:serious ... this is the puppy linux forum isn't it :D

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
Really? You freed what? ... animals? ... slaves? ... prisoners? ... bytes?
:twisted:

My previous ROX was a run-of-the-mill v. 2.11 (not your hack) running
on a Puppy Precise 5.4.3 and wmx-8 / jwm. The wm didn't matter.

You wrote:
> Hmm curious..something that works better with jwm.
Strange indeed... :twisted:
It's got a nice ring to it, though. A sharp ad person could use it!

BFN.

musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#67 Post by mikeb »

freed...glib variables... they desire it... its primative stuff.
You literally allocate bytes in memory and then release again... the domain of buffer overflows... its tricky to get it to do anything meaningful let alone control your computer and any relatives that may live nearby.

Ok so the 2.11 you have...would be that which came with puppy? in other words patched in some way...

Keisha seems to have a bit of a handle on this ...

mike

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#68 Post by musher0 »

mikeb wrote:freed...glib variables... they desire it... its primative stuff.
You literally allocate bytes in memory and then release again... the domain of buffer overflows... its tricky to get it to do anything meaningful let alone control your computer and any relatives that may live nearby.

Ok so the 2.11 you have...would be that which came with puppy? in other words patched in some way...

Keisha seems to have a bit of a handle on this ...

mike
I'll double-check on a "virgin" Puppy Precise 5.4.3. I can't remember if I've
compiled a ROX-Filer from source at some point on this Puppy.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#69 Post by mikeb »

Like a virgin
Built for the very first time,
like a ver er erer gin,
feel your kernel tic next to mine.

One build per user perhaps...bit like the one kernel per user of modern linux.

lets do a clog dance to help the thought juices flow.

Mike

Keisha
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2014, 05:43

#70 Post by Keisha »

musher0 wrote:I can't remember if I've compiled a ROX-Filer from source at some point on this Puppy.
So, what is "this Puppy?" Do you mean you are using a Precise 5.4.3 which has a busy social life?
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.â€￾ --Bruce Lee

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#71 Post by musher0 »

Keisha wrote:
musher0 wrote:I can't remember if I've compiled a ROX-Filer from source at some point on this Puppy.
So, what is "this Puppy?" Do you mean you are using a Precise 5.4.3 which has a busy social life?
Funny guy! Indeed, Puppy Precise 5.4.3 is quite the socialite!!! 8) :lol:
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#72 Post by musher0 »

My rig:
rox -v :
ROX-Filer 2.11
...[some blabla]...
Compiled with GTK version 2.24.8
Running with GTK version 2.24.10
-- features set at compile time --
Large File Support... Yes
Inotify support... Yes
Dnotify support... No
Binary compatibility... No (apsymbols.h not found)
Extended attribute support... Yes

uname -a :
Linux puppypcABCD 3.2.29 #1 SMP Thu Sep 13 20:33:02 GMT-8 2012
i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
So, I'm using the "virgin" ROX-Filer that comes OOTB with PPrecise 5.4.3.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#73 Post by mikeb »

Ok ..I will read through those patches and see if anything looks relevant... I won't blindly apply them.

I assume no one else here uses wmx hence just your report and the rest of the silence is golden.
No mysterious puppy/rox maintainer has emerged.... sling it in woof and whoever happens to pass by it seems.

It was all going so well :(

First a word from our sponsor.... oh he ran off

mike

User avatar
L18L
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2010, 18:56
Location: www.eussenheim.de/

Rox and desktop files: how to display Comment

#74 Post by L18L »

mikeb wrote:I assume no one else here uses wmx hence just your report and the rest of the silence is golden.
Other users of wmx might have read (and understood) the title of this thread. :wink:

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#75 Post by mikeb »

Well would be nice for some confirmation and further insight of the bug.
More clues the better really.

Also its up to the posters here to find fixes since its obviously not going to be getting general support.

Looked at the patches but they are for more column options, a send to menu focus change, change in options and a larger log.
Nothing seems relevent.

Mike

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

Re: Rox and desktop files: how to display Comment

#76 Post by musher0 »

L18L wrote:
mikeb wrote:I assume no one else here uses wmx hence just your report and the rest of the silence is golden.
Other users of wmx might have read (and understood) the title of this thread. :wink:
@L18L and mikeb:

The sponsor had gone under some blankets to get some shut-eye in his
timezone... :)

Many thanks, mikeb, that's very generous of you, but don't mind my
problem if it is not reported regarding use of your edit with major wm's
.

Meaning: I have to take a closer look at wmx-8, and discover how it
may conflict with the new ROX patch. Or maybe there's an actual spider
or ladybug somewhere inside this old & dusty ACER. :)

L18L is right: the number of non-English-speaking Puppyists using wmx
AND experiencing this bug is going to be infinitesimal.

So don't lose sleep over my little problem, please, don't let any anxiety
build up, you did a terrific job! :)

BFN.

musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#77 Post by mikeb »

don't let any anxiety build up,
why do you think we went without to get a boat...tis the only cure :)

As for patches for the purists it would probably make sense to apply the lot anyway. Well its out there for the takers now.

Thread is open if there is any news.

mike

User avatar
ASRI éducation
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sat 09 May 2009, 12:10
Location: France
Contact:

#78 Post by ASRI éducation »

I appreciate this discussion.
Motivation, good ideas, solutions!

Thank you to all contributors.

Regards,
Projet ASRI éducation => [url=http://asri-education.org/]Association[/url] | [url=http://forum.asri-education.org/]Forum[/url] | [url=http://dl01.asri-education.org/]Dépôt[/url] | [url=http://kids.asri-education.org/]Espace kids[/url]

Keisha
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2014, 05:43

#79 Post by Keisha »

Can anyone tell me where is the devx for Precise Puppy 5.4.3?

**edited never mind, found it**
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.â€￾ --Bruce Lee

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#80 Post by musher0 »

@mikeb:
I just had a mouse freeze playing Bubbles using wmx and the OOTB
ROX-Filer. Same symptoms as described above with ROX.

So your edited ROX is not the cause. I still can't pinpoint it, but it's obviously
not your edited ROX.

The mouse came back on line in the Bubbles game after +/- 30 seconds.

BFN.

musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

Post Reply