[Geany-Devel] Proposal from the Mint distro

Colomban Wendling lists.ban at herbesfolles.org
Sun Oct 21 14:08:22 UTC 2012

Le 21/10/2012 10:14, Matthew Brush a écrit :
> On 12-10-20 06:01 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
>> Reply from Clement:
>> "Regarding the default text editor, I've read the emails on the mailing
>> list with interest. From our point of view, it wouldn't need to change
>> much. Typically we're looking at a generic unbranded "text editor" that
>> works great and is lightweight. Geany fits the bill nicely, pluma also
>> to a
>> lesser extent. There's two different kinds of users at play here, so I
>> wouldn't like not having the full geany in the repositories (i.e.
>> patching
>> geany and dumbing it down by configuration wouldn't be a good solution
>> for
>> all devs using it out there), but I also wouldn't like to have geany
>> itself, as a dev tool, installed by default, since it's a power tool most
>> users wouldn't use (similarly we don't install tools like dconf-editor,
>> remmina..etc..).
>> [...]
>> My 2c:
>> 1. The "lite" and the "full fat" version do need to be different
>> commands,
>> the lite version is for simple use and has to start without options when
>> used from the command line, and whilst full fat could be an option on the
>> lite version, I'm not sure its preferable, a compile time decision makes
>> life simpler.  From a user POV two application names makes more sense I
>> think.
> Or I think it's easy enough (I think) to symlink some command, like to
> link "text-editor" to "geany --light" whether using some shell stuff, or
> launchers, or whatever.

As I said before, a "geany -mnt" script is a good start :)

>> 2. The question as I see it is, do we want to make the lite version a
>> part
>> of the Geany codebase, clearly sharing as much as possible.  That
>> could be
>> complex if the needs of the two diverge, so how likely is that? That also
>> means two packages, two bug trackers etc.  In the end this would be my
>> preferred method if it looks like it will work.
> If it does indeed come down to just hiding widgets, I think we could
> offer a way to do that. We (or Mint guys) could have a 2nd Glade file
> which has the visibility of much stuff set to false. Other way is to
> maintain an array of items to hide on startup. Both of these ideas were
> shared here I think. I made a quick and dirty patch to show the later form:
> http://pastebin.geany.org/ODwZr/
> For distro packages, they could be packaged like this:
>     geany-core - the full geany install minus glade & desktop files
>         geany-light - geany-core plus the light glade & desktop file
>           ** this would be installed by default on Mint
>     geany - geany-core plus the full glade & desktop file
> For people who want to use the full (normal) Geany, they could install
> the "geany" package which could install the full Glade UI and the
> regular launchers and stuff. But the default is to have only
> "geany-light" (plus "geany-core") installed.
> Geany doesn't have so much overhead that it's worth not installing the
> bulk of it up front.

I think that before getting wild with implementations we should list
what the goal is.  If I understand correctly, the Mint guys would like:

1) a re-brand, e.g. different icon/application name
2) all 'developer-like" things hidden/removed

2 is totally doable at runtime, that's just a matter of doing it.

1 however is more tricky, and I really don't think a --brand-name=Text\
Editor option makes any sense.  However, it'd be quite easy to make the
brand override-able at build time, e.g. #define BRAND "geany" or alike,
and let this be overridden by the build system, a -D compiler switch or
something.  And Autotools let one already change the executable name.

So, what I mean here is that unless we want stock Geany have a "light"
option, there's no much point in making this a runtime thing.  So what
I'd propose if it allows Mint guyes to do what they want is:

* we (Geany) make it easy to change the brand
* they (Mint) maintain a tuned Glade file, and build Geany sources a
second time with the appropriate flags, e.g. ./configure
--program-transform-name='s/geany/text-editor/g' --brand="text-editor"
--brand-display="Text Editor".  Them either implementing this as a fork
with only geany.glade diverging, as a standalone geany.glade (or even as
a sed script or something), or more likely as a dpatch (to build a
second package out of Geany's sources) doesn't matter much to me.

Would this be enough?  If yes, I think it'd probably be the easier for
us, while being easy enough for the Mint guys.  And BTW, running with
-mnt is easy too, just provide a wrapper script.

BTW, if we want to include the light option in stock Geany, we would
need to to forgot keeping it up to date when adding new widgets or
removing existing ones.  And I'm not 100% sure it's realistic we won't
forget it given that we probably won't run the light version ourselves ;)

>> 3. Or should the lite version be a separate repository with patches
>> transported between them?  Of course needs separate bugtracker though.
> It could, and then it'd keep distro-specific bugs from reaching Geany
> trackers (hopefully).

Not sure what Lex meant, but I don't want to maintain 2 repositories myself.


More information about the Devel mailing list