Reminder | CfP deadline for LAS GNOME this Sunday

[meg ford]

Hi everyone,


This is a quick reminder that the deadline to submit a paper to LAS GNOME
is this Sunday, July 31st. We encourage you to submit your talk now:
http://las.gnome.org/submit-your-talk/

LAS GNOME will be held in Portland, Oregon on September 19 - 23rd and is
the conference to attend if you want to create a business around
Linux-based applications, release your applications to multiple
distributions at the same time, and/or create the conditions necessary to
reach a wider audience for your current Linux apps.

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:


   -

   Ecosystem: business, legal, community, and social issues
   -

   Platforms: deep low-level topics around hardware, drivers, and tools
   -

   Distribution: collaborating with established distributions (like
   OpenSuse), inter-distribution cooperation, QA and continuous integration.
   -

   Development: toolkits, X/Wayland, security, runtimes, SDK, development
   tools.


Proposals by newcomers and experienced speakers are welcomed alike. When
submitting your proposal, please keep in mind that talk slots are 45
minutes long.

Best,

The LAS GNOME Committee
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Ikey Doherty]

On 27/07/16 15:24, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Ikey Doherty
> > wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> With forking I mostly was thinking about gnome-settings-daemon - it is
> maintained and used by GNOME. So I don't want to fork it to just add one
> or two small changes and then maintain it by cherry-picking probably all
> changes from original project.
> 
> -- 
> Alberts Muktupāvels

Yeah we have the same problem over in Budgie, which leads us to then
implement all kinds of lying bugger kinds of dbus interfaces and
shims to make it all stick together (i.e. org.gnome.Shell, keygrabber,
etc ..)


 - ikey
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Alberts Muktupāvels]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Ikey Doherty 
wrote:

> > 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.
>

With forking I mostly was thinking about gnome-settings-daemon - it is
maintained and used by GNOME. So I don't want to fork it to just add one or
two small changes and then maintain it by cherry-picking probably all
changes from original project.

-- 
Alberts Muktupāvels
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Ikey Doherty]

On 27/07/16 14:55, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Ikey Doherty
> > wrote:
> 
> On 21/07/16 14:27, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-07-21  at 14:12 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi 
> wrote:
> >> Hi;
> >>
> >> On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty  >
> >> 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 
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alberts Muktupāvels
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 16:55 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
> 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.

It is already closed for entering new bugs. It should probably have
been moved to the attic as well, but that wasn't done at the time.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list