The Thunar extension also has very basic bulk renamer support.
The extension currently allows you to quickly preview font files by simply selecting them in the file manager while font-viewer is open and also adds an option to install font files in the file manager context menu. gnome-font-viewer (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed: Importance: Low: Assignee: 1 reports, 20 comments, 8 subscribers, 4 duplicates gnome-shell crashed with SIGSEGV in. Sudo apt-get install font-manager File Manager extensionsįedora and Ubuntu users can also find extensions for Nautilus, Nemo and Thunar in the repositories. Sudo add-apt-repository ppa:font-manager/staging This needs to be done for every installed Flatpak application.Īrchive support does not work in Flatpak buildsĭistribution packages Arch User RepositoryĪrch Linux users can install font-manager from official repositories: You can use an application such as Flatseal or add -filesystem=xdg-config/fontconfig to the command used to launch the application.
Please see Known Issues before installing.Īccess to xdg-config/fontconfig is necessary for other Flatpak applications to recognize changes made by Font Manager. If you would like to help this application reach more users in their native language please visit the project page on Weblate.
Which is clearly too much upower, plymouth, and exiv2 definitely don’t belong in the GNOME MRE. Including those gets us the list: NetworkManager : core-deps So, parsing the BuildStream files and keeping only the first level dependencies in core/ and sdk/ gives the following list: NetworkManager : core-depsīut this is too restrictive - some things which clearly should be under the GNOME MRE, like evolution-data-server are in core-deps. I propose to accept SRU requests for that use case on an individually assessed case by case basis. There is one use case not covered here: a user might be directly using Vala as published in Ubuntu to build something not in the archive. On the other hand, not updating Vala would not risk this class of regression, and there wouldn’t be any impact to users of Vala-built packages. Otherwise my concern is that we risk introducing regressions by updating Vala that will only expose them on further SRUs of other components, that will be much harder to pin down as a result.
So is that worth doing at all? Whether or not Vala is a core GNOME component, is an exception to the exception warranted here? For example: what if we said that we only update Vala if there’s specific SRU-qualifying-under-normal-rules user impact in a package that will be fixed by the Vala update and will also be rebuilt as part of the update?
The current SRU microrelease update request does not request that. As far as I understand, a Vala update will provide no immediate benefit in an SRU except in the case that reverse build dependencies are rebuilt. In the case of Vala, I have one further question. Possibly some more out of sdk/ would be sensible, but that also includes a bunch of stuff that should clearly not be covered, like Kerberos and WebKit. Pulling out the things under the gnome-build meta, it looks like a sensible list would be - core/baobab.bst The things under the GNOME namespace might be GNOME components, but I’m pretty sure not all those 400+ projects are core GNOME components - the perl GTK2 bindings, for example, don’t seem likely to be core GNOME anymore