Re: [desktop] Thoughts on GTK+2 problems in Wmaker
On Die, 2003-01-07 at 08:16, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 06:13:39PM -0500, Matthew McGuire wrote:
>
> > [...] if I run GNOME 2 apps in Wmaker the default user
> > configurations don't load for the applications. I have the suspicion
> > that gnome-session is responsible for this in some weird way. Why?
> > Well I can run Wmaker and then gmc and get the old gtk+1.4 app to
> > load its config correctly. Gmc will have the correct theme and font
> > sizes. I can then load Galeon and it will also load with the correct
> > theme and font sizes. However when Galeon loads it starts gconfd-2. I
> > believe this is because gconfd-2 functinally replaces the old gconfd
> > from GNOME. Logically I should then be able to load the new GNOME
> > Terminal and it should use the running gconfd-2 to load its config.
> > Alas it does not. I can force the system to load the settings by
> > opening any configuration tool in GNOME Control Center 2. Sadly this
> > also clobbers my desktop background, which is mostly harmless but
> > annoying.
>
> There's a setting somewhere "leave my desktop alone" or "don't set the
> background" or something like that.
>
> > The difference here is the oafd has now called the gnome-settings-
> > object module thing. (CORBA and bonobo still lose me a bit.) I
> > managed to figure most of this using pstree -aul and tracking it all
> > down. I am using wdm as my display manager as well.
>
> My (little) understanding of this issue is that GNOME apps start
> gconfd-2 automatically if it's not running. And I think someone
> patched some GNOME 1 library in order to start gconfd-2 instead of the
> old version.
>
> > So enough of that. I wanted to know if you ran into the same problem
> > and if you found any solutions.
>
> No, it doesn't ring a bell here.
Does starting gnome-settings-daemon help?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: