Re: xscreensaver, any plan do drop it !!

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, David Zeuthen wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 04:29 +0200, Chipzz wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >
> > > There's also the (somewhat uninteresting) question of what to do when
> > > there are no desktop sessions, e.g. what piece gets to enforce the
> > > policy that the system should be put into low-power mode (and where does
> > > it read settings from?)? I'm mostly of the opinion that we launch the
> > > policy enforcing daemons (e.g. gnome-volume-manager, gnome-power) with a
> > > --no-display option as user e.g. nobody (which makes them read default
> >
> > Will this be possible with the new session framework?
> >
> Sure, if the maintainers of gdm and the session framework wants this,
> I'm sure it's possible to do. It makes a lot of sense to me.

What I meant is, from what I understood from the discussion about the
new session framework, I think services will be started by .desktop
files, ie hardcoded command-line arguments.

> > > Where would be the best place for this interface to live? My thinking
> > > right now is gnome-screensaver. What do you think?
> >
> > This would make things like gnome-volume-manager, which you mention
> > above, depend on gnome-screensaver, so IMHO that would not be the right
> > place. I have systems with for example gnome-volume-manager installed,
> > but no screensaver (neither xscreensaver gnome-screensaver).
> The way I see that system-integration currently works with GNOME,
> everything is done in a layered way with somewhat optional dependencies
> so vendors can pick and choose what they want. I see no reason to
> discontinue this in the short time-frame. Of course, this makes it more
> difficult for the small distributions and, oh, also the LFS crowd.
> System integration comes at a price I guess.
> Oh, and whether the hypothetical interface I mentioned is going to be
> part of gnome-screensaver or anything else is not at all clear to me
> yet. That's really a question for the various maintainers (gdm,
> gnome-screensaver, gnome-session etc.) out there; I'm just trying to
> argue that GNOME needs to care about system integration (and thus
> high-level architecture) if GNOME want all the bells and whistles that
> other _operating systems_ has :-)

My argument was more of in which library it belongs. Maybe this is the
future of libgnome(ui).
One problem (?) I see with gnome is the proliferation of a lot of small
libraries. This has 2 negative consequences: 1) making gnome harder to
compile, which with buildscripts like jhbuild is not as much of an
argument as making it more difficult for distributors, and 2) increased
loading time.


Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout

                 UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
                           Chipzz ULYSSIS Org
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself pur-
 ple and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here a-

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]