Bug 69807

Summary:	default showing of background images when computer is fast enough
Product:	[Applications] kbounce	Reporter:	Sander Devrieze <s.devrieze>
Component:	general	Assignee:	schimmi
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	wishlist	CC:	caionnew, coates
Priority:	NOR
Version First Reported In:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Debian testing
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Sander Devrieze 2003-12-07 20:28:07 UTC

Version:            (using KDE KDE 3.1.93)
Installed from:    Debian testing/unstable Packages

Last summer I did some kdegames testing with my 2 brothers. One of these 2 (7 years old) loves Kbounce very much, especially when I turned the background images feature on for him.

My proposal:
Enable this feature default when the computer is fast enough. Maybe this can be done via the KPersonalizer eye candy step.

Comment 1 Sander Devrieze 2004-03-12 23:20:14 UTC

Not yet in KDE 3.2.1

Comment 2 icefox 2004-05-15 19:20:46 UTC

Well you have to select a background folder first.  And until you do that then it can't be turned on by default.  But once you do select a folder and turn it on it will remember it and turn it on whenever the game starts.  In this regard the feature is done.  The first part can't be automated sense kbounce comes with no backgrounds.

Comment 3 Sander Devrieze 2004-05-15 19:42:06 UTC

Kbounce uses default the backgrounds in kdeartwork if I'm sure...

Comment 4 icefox 2004-05-15 19:58:45 UTC

Nope it doesn't have a default value.

m_backgroundDir = config->readPathEntry( "BackgroundDir" );

Also kdegames can't depend upon kdeartwork.

Comment 5 Sander Devrieze 2004-05-15 20:17:49 UTC

k, I was wrong then, but can't you make that the default dir and enable it automatically when kdeartwork is installed? Or is that too stupid? :D

Comment 6 disabled account 2010-01-20 03:35:41 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 219507 ***

Comment 7 Parker Coates 2010-03-18 21:49:17 UTC

This bug doesn't seem related to bug 219507. Was it marked as duplicate by accident? Or is it actually duplicate, but of some other bug?

Comment 8 disabled account 2010-03-19 00:14:56 UTC

(In reply to comment #7)
> This bug doesn't seem related to bug 219507. Was it marked as duplicate by
> accident? Or is it actually duplicate, but of some other bug?

Yes this looks like I accidently marked this one as a duplicate of the wrong bug...