Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Ikey Doherty <michael i doherty intel com>]

On 27/07/16 14:55, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Ikey Doherty
> <michael i doherty intel com <mailto:michael i doherty intel com>> wrote:
>
>     On 21/07/16 14:27, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>     > On Thu, 2016-07-21 <tel:2016-07-21> at 14:12 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>     >> Hi;
>     >>
>     >> On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty <michael i doherty intel com <mailto:michael i doherty intel 
> com>>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express
>     >>> concern
>     >>> with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
>     >>> forking GNOME Screensaver due to its deadness, and making it work
>     >>> better for Budgie/Modern GNOME integration.
>     >>>
>     >>> Jeremy correctly pointed out it might be worth maintaining the
>     >>> project instead, which I'm up for.
>     >>
>     >> AFAIR, gnome-screensaver is part of the "Flashback" session:
>     >> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeFlashback
>
>
> I would not say that gnome-screensaver is part of Flashback session, but
> yes - we currently use it.

So at present it is part of flashback, an integral component.

>     >> given that it uses Metacity.
>     >
>     > I don't know how well that works, or whether they've replaced gnome-
>     > screensaver and gnome-settings-daemon yet. I refused to add hacks to
>     > gnome-settings-daemon to make it work under GNOME Flashback as there
>     > were just too many things that wouldn't work properly with it.
>
>
> No, we have not replaced gnome-screensaver and gnome-settings-daemon.
> And currently I don't plan to replace gnome-settings-daemon.
>
> GNOME + (gnome-applets, gnome-flashback, gnome-panel and metacity) ==
> GNOME Flashback:
> This is how I see Flashback session, I don't want to start fork projects
> to keep them almost identical.

Fair do.

> About mentioned hacks, there are two things:
> - appmenu button that is needed in our session, but is hidden because
> gnome-settings-daemon sets Gtk/ShellShowsAppMenu when org.gnome.Shell
> bus name appears. This can be solved with small patch- by not calling
> start_shell_monitor if XDG_CURRENT_DESKTOP contains "GNOME-Flashback".
> - default button-layout is not good for Flashback session... but I am
> against adding hack for this in gss, here I would like to see
> per-session gsettings overrides (session-dependent defaults). That also
> would allow to drop hack that is used for GNOME Classic session.
>
> If something is moved from gss to mutter/gnome-shell, I can make/add
> needed changes in gnome-flashback. It would be really nice if small
> changes could be accepted.
>
>     FWIW in Budgie we added a "Shell Shim" D-BUS API in budgie-wm, the
>     Mutter wrapper, to implement that compatability, and proxy some calls
>     back to the panel manager, i.e. for GTK+ ops, such as the
>     EndSessionDialog.
>
>
>     >
>     > I think a fork/rename would be the best option to avoid confusion in
>     > the bug tracker. Given the number of time I have to reassign bugs about
>     > the desktop file manager window to nautilus from gnome-desktop, it
>     > would probably be best if bugs weren't stuck there.
>     >
>
>     OK so if the Flashback guys aren't interested in GNOME Screensaver
>     longevity (Given the aims _do_ include modernisation on my end, which
>     might conflict with Flashback goals) then what's the best course?
>
>
> For long time I already want/plan to merge gnome-screensaver into
> gnome-flashback. It will give more freedom to make needed changes
> without affecting any other users and/or sessions that still use
> gnome-screensaver. So I guess I can say that we are not interested in
> GNOME Screensaver as standalone module.

..So.. you're forking it, contrary to what you said above. Into your own
gnome-flashback component.


Well with that in mind, as nobody is interested in this deadtech (Can't
say as people can be blamed on that!) - I'll re-eval gnome-screensaver,
and if necessary, steal the bits into Budgie.

If I do end up forking it, well, nobody can complain, I did offer :)

- ikey
>     Ideally I want to get this thing cleaned up so we can avoid more dead
>     forks like light-locker and the likes. Fundamental selfish aim for
>     me is of course Budgie interoptability (Which will serve us until Budgie
>     12, when we're Wayland, but it would continue to be maintained)
>
>
>     - ikey
>     _______________________________________________
>     desktop-devel-list mailing list
>     desktop-devel-list gnome org <mailto:desktop-devel-list gnome org>
>     https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberts Muktupāvels