Gajim - 2013-03-30

  1. mcepl I don't use blocking much, but if the old-blocking-XEP is supported on the server, I don't see the reason why we should loose group blocking.
  2. bot RSS: Feeds for Gajim • Ticket #7329 (Compact download page) created I was reading a  recent post by Graeme Gott where he mentions  OBS repository We can embed it to download page as iframe. Though, it seems that Archlinux, Gentoo, FreeBSD, Zenwalk etc. are not available in OBS, then perhaps it would be preferable to copy the code from openSUSE and add to it other operating systems.  Create your own download page
  3. Asterix mcepl: I agree. So my last idea was to: - use the current privacy list code if it's available - use XEP191 as a fallback if server has only that.
  4. Link Mauve I would do it in the other direction, if it is the simple case use 191 if available, if not available or a more complexe case use privacy list.
  5. Asterix so if my server has this 191 feature, remove a feature from Gajim?
  6. Link Mauve Which feature?
  7. Asterix blocking a group
  8. Asterix we can't do that with 191
  9. Asterix we can do it with privacy lists
  10. Link Mauve It’s a complexe case, so you don’t change anything about that.
  11. Link Mauve Just disable the menu item if the server doesn’t support privacy list.
  12. Link Mauve (But I guess you are already doing that.)
  13. Asterix yes, so we should use privacy list in priority as it supports more feature
  14. Asterix (we don't have 191 implemented yet)
  15. Link Mauve 191 is simpler, assuming you implement it I don’t see the point of using privacy list over it for the use cases supported by both.
  16. Asterix so you suggest to use privacy lists for blocking groups and 191 for blocking JIDs?
  17. Link Mauve Yeah, that would make sense.
  18. Link Mauve The only use of any blocking feature I’ve ever used was against a spammer, and a few times in MUC.
  19. Asterix that's not very recommanded in XEP191, because both use the same data backend, so the same privacy lists
  20. Asterix it's just that 191 will only handle part of it
  21. Link Mauve I think that’s implementation choice.
  22. Asterix yes, I don't use it a lot, but blocking a group could use usefull to block a co-worker group during week end for ex
  23. Asterix I see the things another way: Why using 191 if PL already do everything, Gajim supports it and server supports it
  24. bullgard4 What is a "E-Session"?
  25. Asterix encrypted sessions
  26. Asterix your chat is encrypted from you to your contact. So even server can't decrypt it
  27. bullgard4 Asterix, Right. But "encrypted sessions" is a generic term, and I would like to learn more about the specifics related to Gajim.
  28. Link Mauve Asterix, I’d say for compatibility with other servers, with other clients, and because 191 is half the size of 16, with basically only three different elements.
  29. Asterix Link Mauve: I'm ok to use XEP191 if server supports only that, and in that case grey the block group feature, but why use it if server supports 16?
  30. Asterix bullgard4: it's a deprecated XEP that is implemented only in Gajim
  31. Link Mauve Asterix, btw, are a single JID block and a group block the only two features of privacy list Gajim exposes to the user?
  32. Link Mauve And manual editing, but that’s too horrible.
  33. Asterix Link Mauve: it's the features we expose easyly in menues, but we have a PL window in which you can do your own rules. so 16 is fully supported
  34. Link Mauve That’s what I was saying by horrible. :)
  35. Link Mauve I remember trying it a long time ago.
  36. Asterix yep ... for advanced users only :)
  37. Link Mauve But anyway, maybe you could ask on the list to add a group item to 191, I don’t have any use for that but if users want that it should be a good addition.
  38. Link Mauve Btw, why are pushes iq and not message in those two XEPs?
  39. Asterix because we have a result to know that everything went well?
  40. Link Mauve What would an error mean as the answer to a push?
  41. Link Mauve Say you are connected with 4 resources, the first block some JID, the next two answer with a result while the last one errors.
  42. Link Mauve Does that change anything?
  43. Link Mauve I guess it’s too late to change that now, though…
  44. Asterix ha yes that's the reason of IQ: they are pushed to other resources
  45. bullgard4 Asterix, Thank youvery much for your help.
  46. Asterix bullgard4: you found the XEP?
  47. bullgard4 Yes. A friend told me about it.
  48. Asterix ThibG: is there a way to debug what happens in farstream? how could we know what's going on in this kind of things: XML seems ok, the rest is done in farstream / nice / gstreamer and I don't know what to look ...
  49. ThibG I don't really know, sorry
  50. Asterix ok I'll ask in farstream ML
  51. bot RSS: Feeds for Gajim • Ticket #6117 (Audio/video does not work) updated Could you set GST_DEBUG environment variable to: GST_DEBUG=*rtp*:6, this will print a lot of information about gstreamer to understand what's going on.
  52. Darlan Audio/Video do not work against Jitsi.
  53. Darlan Audio does not work against Psi-0.15
  54. Darlan Gajim vs. Gajim works well
  55. Darlan Psi: Call negotiation timed out
  56. Darlan Loki: Use Salix OS GNU/Linux if you like LXDE :-)
  57. Asterix daurnimator: escape_key_closes in ACE
  58. Loki darlan thanks but lubuntu united debain and xlde. i like it
  59. Darlan Except for up to date packages, last time I checked.
  60. Darlan I have a little patient for ubuntu. I use Debian and SalixOS.
  61. Darlan As long as you use Linux, I am happy.
  62. Loki i use debian unstable main für gajim and for libre office , vlc the ppa from the developers
  63. Loki ubuntu with unity is horrific.
  64. bot RSS: Feeds for Gajim • Changeset [14479:250fa772db76]: re-work blocking code default re-work blocking code • Changeset [14480:01a4b45635b3]: implement XEP-0191 for servers that don't support privacy lists default implement XEP-0191 for servers that don't support privacy lists
  65. bot RSS: Feeds for Gajim • GajimXEPSupport edited (diff)