Re: [gdm-list] Status of GDM 2.22?

[Lukasz Zalewski <lukas dcs qmul ac uk>]

Brian Cameron wrote:
> GDM community:
>
> Now that we have passed the GNOME 2.21 API and feature freezes (and the
> UI freeze is just one week away), I think it is time to assess where
> we are in terms of the D-Bus rewrite and our roadmap.
>
> I am a bit concerned about the energy level, which seems to have dwindled
> a bit.  The last major update about the rewrite was posted to this list
> in October, the GDM Wiki hasn't been updated since November, and there
> has been little discussion at all since before the holidays.  Jon/Ray/etc,
> do you think you could provide an update and refresh the TODO list on the
> Wiki?
>
>    http://live.gnome.org/GDM/NewDesign
>    http://live.gnome.org/GDM/ToDo
>
> At any rate, I think it makes sense to get an update on where we are,
> what  people are doing, and our expectations regarding when we think the
> GDM rewrite will be ready for a stable release.
>
> When we first discussed whether to fork or whether the rewrite should
> replace the existing GDM, we seemed to agree on a few options[1]:
>
> - The rewrite would become GDM 2.22 if we got everything done in time.
>
> - If we didn't get everything done in time, then we could skip the
>    2.22 release and continue working in the development branch.  Then
>    we would try to release the rewrite in a later release cycle.
>
> - Although we decided forking was a bad option six months ago, now we
>    have an opportunity to rethink.
>
> ----
>
> I do have a number of concerns about the rewrite, and I want to see what
> people think about them.  Forgive me if I mis-speak about any of these
> issues.  I have not tested the latest code, so I might be off on a
> bullet item or two.
>
>    + Audit logic (both SELinux and Solaris) is not yet ported.  This is
>      probably a hard requirement for some users.
>
>    + Lack of configuration support or migration of configuration from older
>      versions of GDM.  I am especially concerned since the current GDM
>      documentation claims the configuration is stable.
>
>      Many people have argued that it makes sense to deprecate and/or drop
>      some configuration options.  To this I agree.  However, it seems that
>      the new rewrite supports very few of the old "stable" configuration
>      options.  This seems likely to cause frustrated amongst users who
>      depend on the ability to configure GDM.  I have, for example, special
>      concerns about people who depend on the ability to configure the
>      [server] and [server-foo] sections of the configuration file.
>
>    + Shutdown/Reboot/Suspend not working.
>
>    + Lack of Xinerama support (not sure how well multihead support is
>      looking).
>
>    + Ability to select language in the login GUI.  There has been some
>      discussion that this feature may not be so important, but I suspect
>      this will be a big issue for some users.
>
>    + Accessibility support in the login GUI.
>
>    + Failsafe login in the login GUI.  (ditto on the "may not be so
>      important but likely a big issue for some users")
>
>    + How well is XDMCP choosing working in the rewrite?
>
> Are there other important issues people want to highlight?  Probably
> no need to again highlight Sun Ray issues since we have already talked
> about those at length.
>
> ----
>
> I am interested to hear what the various distros plan to do about GDM
> in the 2.22 release cycle.  Do distros feel that GDM is ready for a
> stable release or does it make more sense for GDM to punt for another
> release cycle?
>
> I know that Sun cannot switch to the new login program until it meets
> various requirements (Sun Ray support, audit, etc.), so Solaris will
> continue to use GDM 2.20 until those issues are addressed.  However, I
> know other distros may not be so concerned about interface stability
> and may want to switch to the rewrite sooner.
>
> Or does it make sense to fork the rewrite into a separate project?  As
> the rewrite has developed, it seems that there is little interest in
> supporting the look & feel, themeability, the configuration, or other
> aspects that make GDM "GDM".  As Jon has stated, there are now only a
> handful of functions in the rewrite which have remained from the old
> code-base.
>
> Also, forking would allow distros to install both GDM and the new
> login program in parallel.  This would make it easier for distros to
> support both login programs while the rewrite still does not support
> all functionality that users depend upon.
>
> Lastly, there are a number of patches/fixes that didn't go into the
> GDM 2.20 branch since they changed strings, etc.  If we fork, then
> the old GDM can be maintained a bit better.
>
> It might be a good idea to raise this discussion to a more general
> list, such as desktop-devel-list to get a wider perspective on what
> people think.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Brian
>
> [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gdm-list/2007-October/msg00037.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdm-list mailing list
> gdm-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gdm-list

Brian,
It has been a quite busy period for me, but my failure do deliver 
somehow astounds me. I'm hoping to spend next few months concentrating 
on the configurator so we can move closer to the "completion" stage

Regards

L