Re: xscreensaver, any plan do drop it !!

[David Zeuthen <david fubar dk>]

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.

>From a 50,000 feet perspective, I think this really comes down to
whether there's a consensus about that GNOME is serious with integrating
with the base operating system (for example wanting to replace e.g.
acpid with something GNOME-ish a'la the gnome-power project). As a data
point, many distros now use the HAL with either gnome-volume-manager or
the KDE 3.4 equivalent. So at least many distributions are interested in
system integration.

> > 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 :-)

    David

ps. : sorry that my mail is full of buzzwords