Re: [sabayon] On the topic of lockdown

[Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk>]

On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 14:00 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 12:05 +0200, Rob Bradford wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:31 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:

> Uhm, I don't understand what you mean? What change? We already have
> specific lockdown keys like 
> /desktop/gnome/lockdown/disable_command_line, and supporting that is not
> a change.

At the moment this is the *only* type we support. I want to support
making things other keys just mandatory.

> Do you want to add specific lockdown keys for things that already have a
> gconf key that could be made non-writable I don't think that makes any
> sense. That would basically mean duplicating each setting in gconf.

Exactly maintainers don't want to add extra keys yet I want to support
locking down things.

So the way the applier would work under my proposal is:

(1) If the lockdown feature is covered by a meta key (e.g. terminal)
then the key would be set and made mandatory at the same time and in the
same operation

(2) If the lockdown feature is part of the new generation without
explicit lockdown keys this would just set the appropriate keys to
mandatory. An example of this would be the background settings. These
are governed by three keys. Turning on background lockdown makes these
three keys mandatory.

If this was implemented under the current user-interface paradigm this
would be like having no checkbox and just a padlock. Which I think would
be very confusing. So basically i'm suggesting that the checkbox implies
mandatoryness (not a real word) and also the setting of a key in the
meta case.

Clear as mud? :)

Cheers,

Rob
-- 
Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk>