On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Harald Sitter <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > > Sorry, that came across really whiny - it wasn't intended. I have been at the pub, I'm going to blame it on that. > > 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. > My bad, I worded that very badly. It's copied and pasted native C code, that is then either bound to GTK in the GTK lib, or Qt in ours. There's no lib-dependency. The point is that it's copied and pasted code. That's never a long term good sign. We don't want the two going out of sync. It does seem like the LightDM backend suddenly lost it's DBus interface and I'm not sure why. > > 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. > > What I would like to see is a list of things we want to do with the greeter - and then we can discuss the best solutions for doing it. I'm talking to Alex Fiestas on IRC, I'm not /that/ against plasma, I just want to the right solution chosen properly, not because it's the latest buzzword. > 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 Will do, Thanks. Can I propose that: - We all get our thinking caps on, come up with ideas for "our ideal login manager" (including the KCM) - We get some idea from Robert (and anyone else on the main LightDM side) as to what upcoming changes in the backend we can expect. - I'll tidy up the library code, and make it both QML and Plamsa ready (pretty much the same thing, more models, more property macros etc.) - From here we have an IRC meeting to discuss the plan. > > > regards, > Harald > > -- > kubuntu-devel mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel >
-- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
