Hi David, On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:06 AM, David Edmundson <[email protected]> wrote: > I stumbled upon your blueprint plans for use of LightDM in Kubuntu 11.10, > and as the person who has written most of LightDM-qt so far I wanted to add > some opinions and an update on where the lib is. > Firstly if you're going to discuss LightMD, it would have been nice to have > been notified.
We did not even know you were working on it (well, at least I did not ;)). The plan itself is to carry the whole discussion and implementation upstream to KDE, and see if KDM is a lost cause and if it is whether people are in favor of going with LightDM. At least then you would have known of the discussion I assume. At any rate not inviting you to the UDS discussion was by no means intentional. > There's so much I intend to get done with it, but I've been really busy > trying to get KDE Telepathy out. It's all already consuming far more time > than I really should let it. > Anyway. What's the current state and what needs to be done: > Robert Ancell (the main LightDM guy) has been refactoring the backend, which > has led to some changes in the Qt lib which I'm not 100% happy with. Instead > of just jumping on dbus, we now have a lot of GTK lib copying+pasting with a > thin Qt wrapper in the main class of the greeter. At a minimum I want this > moved out to a separate private class to give a very clean maintainable > header to the publicly exposed main lib. Ideally we'd want someone like > George Kiagiadis involved who is extremely pro at auto-building Qt bindings > for GTK and get a library that isn't going to fall apart as soon as the GTK > version updates. Selling a GTK+ dependency to people will be *very* difficult, so I think DBus is the better choice really. > I have a far better demo greeter on kde's git repo than the one in bzr repo. > I'll try and merge that. > I want to give it a really significant refactor that switches the lists of > LdmSessions, LdmUsers, and Langauges to be Qt models. I also want to expose > the power management parts as Q_PROPERTIES. I did start this a while ago, > it's not finished but if I worked on it, I could get it done. This not only > makes GUI's quite a bit quicker to build, but will make plasma bindings very > easy. Also necessary for QML, so definitely worth the effort. > It was started by me a year ago, and I wasn't as familiar with KDE > standards/lib consistency as I am now. It's not bad, but it's far from > perfect. I would really appreciate it if you could give me a month to > completely tidy up all the crap up to make it decent ABI stable code. > As for plasma: > With my LibLightDm-Qt hat on, I will absolutely support everything you do > and will do anything I can to make the library really easy for you to use, > let me know and I'll do what I can to update the lib. > With my generic developer hat on, using plasma is an ill-thought through > idea. To me it seems you've jumped to the solution before you've worked out > what problems you're trying to solve are. I also believe it's a security > risk, will lead to slow load times and potentially unstable login screens. I > think it will lead to a lot of future problems. I have an alternate (pure > QML-oriented) scheme in mind that allows for > greater flexibility/theming with a sensible KCM that I think is pretty > solid. However I'm not one for arguments, and LightDM does allow for > multiple greeters (both built off the same greeter lib) really easily so we > can easily do our own thing. There were no particular decision set in stone about using Plasma. Just seemed like an obvious choice. I must say having a QML greeter is certainly intriguing too, especially since I understand Canonical wants to invest in a Qt greeter anyway, so we could share resources there. BTW, you can listen to the session at [1] [1] http://mirrors.tumbleweed.org.za/uds-o/2011-05-13-12-55-desktop-o-kubuntu-lightdm.ogg regards, Harald -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
