Send plymouth mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/plymouth
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of plymouth digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: olpc boot splash (Ray Strode)
2. Re: olpc boot splash (Peter Robinson)
3. Re: olpc boot splash (Ray Strode)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:22:51 -0400
From: Ray Strode <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: olpc boot splash
To: Peter Robinson <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hey,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you know what the policy is for getting plymouth plugins upstream?
> or do we keep it as a separate thing?
I've kind of flipped-flopped over whether all plugins should go
upstream in the past. In many ways it makes a lot of sense for
plugins to go upstream, since the plugin API isn't stable, the project
isn't that big, etc. On the other hand, we don't want plymouth
tarball releases to get too huge either.
We do want to make sure that the plugins are generally useful though.
I guess what I'm saying is, I think we want plugins upstream that
aren't very distro specific.
The way we get around the distro-specific problem currently is we have
configure options --with-logo , --with-background-color etc. By
default these values are a made up "bizcom" logo and a gray color, but
Fedora, for instance, sets the logo to the fedora logo and the
background to blue. Plugins source these values to figure out what to
show. This way the "fade-in" plugin shows bizcom fading in and out by
default, but on Fedora it shows the fedora logo fading in and out
(likewise for the other plugins).
The configure options solution isn't great, though. What if your
background is a gradient instead of a solid color? We solved that
problem by adding --with-background-color-start/end-color-stop
options. Clearly, though adding more and more configure options
doesn't scale.
This came to a head when the "glow" plugin landed recently. It has
many different frames all showing variations of the logo, or frames
based on the shape of the logo. --with-logo just isn't enough. That
plugin punts on the issue. It just ignores what's passed to
configure, ships it's own frames and expects distros to clean up the
mess in their packaging.
The OLPC plugin seems to have the same sort of problem. It has an XO
logo and a fedora logo in it. Also it has an arrow based on the XO
logo. We can't really upstream those things, because they're not
useful outside of olpc/fedora . So some things we could do:
Add a new configure option --with-small-logo. By default it would be
the upside-down copyright symbol we use in the glow plugin. you guys
would change it to be the XO man. For --with-logo you would use your
remix png file.
We could then fix the glow plugin to use the small-logo file too. It
would need to add it's glow programatically instead of using frames.
Alternatively, we could make glow continue using frames, but have some
control config file so things like the olpc boot splash could be made
by changing the file (we should probably rename it from "glow" to
something more fitting then though).
--Ray
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:47:37 +0100
From: Peter Robinson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: olpc boot splash
To: Ray Strode <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hey,
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Do you know what the policy is for getting plymouth plugins upstream?
>> or do we keep it as a separate thing?
> I've kind of flipped-flopped over whether all plugins should go
> upstream in the past. ?In many ways it makes a lot of sense for
> plugins to go upstream, since the plugin API isn't stable, the project
> isn't that big, etc. ?On the other hand, we don't want plymouth
> tarball releases to get too huge either.
>
> We do want to make sure that the plugins are generally useful though.
> I guess what I'm saying is, I think we want plugins upstream that
> aren't very distro specific.
If that's the case you need to have published docs how to build
packages that can link against the core plymouth to make it easy to
build against.
> The way we get around the distro-specific problem currently is we have
> configure options ?--with-logo , --with-background-color etc. ?By
> default these values are a made up "bizcom" logo and a gray color, but
> Fedora, for instance, sets the logo to the fedora logo and the
> background to blue. ?Plugins source these values to figure out what to
> show. ?This way the "fade-in" plugin shows bizcom fading in and out by
> default, but on Fedora it shows the fedora logo fading in and out
> (likewise for the other plugins).
How would that work for things like Fedora remixes where there would
well be two logos like in the olpc demo (although the remix logo might
not be used as it might not be Fedora).
> The configure options solution isn't great, though. ?What if your
> background is a gradient instead of a solid color? We solved that
> problem by adding --with-background-color-start/end-color-stop
> options. ?Clearly, though adding more and more configure options
> doesn't scale.
Well that wouldn't work really great with the XO as the OpenFirmware
goes through to to the bootanim so right from power on through to GUI
is the one colour, a bit like the Macs. I would have thought a single
colour would be the simplest of all options.
> This came to a head when the "glow" plugin landed recently. ?It has
> many different frames all showing variations of the logo, or frames
> based on the shape of the logo. ?--with-logo just isn't enough. ?That
> plugin punts on the issue. ?It just ignores what's passed to
> configure, ships it's own frames and expects distros to clean up the
> mess in their packaging.
>
> The OLPC plugin seems to have the same sort of problem. ?It has an XO
> logo and a fedora logo in it. ?Also it has an arrow based on the XO
> logo. ?We can't really upstream those things, because they're not
> useful outside of olpc/fedora . ?So some things we could do:
I disagree as there's already debXO and most of the OLPC stuff in
ubuntu as well so it could easily be used by 3 different distros, and
the OLPC Server project which could/would also use it wants to
eventually be based off CentOS rather than Fedora.
> Add a new configure option --with-small-logo. By default it would be
> the upside-down copyright symbol we use in the glow plugin. ?you guys
> would change it to be the XO man. ?For --with-logo you would use your
> remix png file.
>
> We could then fix the glow plugin to use the small-logo file too. ?It
> would need to add it's glow programatically instead of using frames.
>
> Alternatively, we could make glow continue using frames, but have some
> control config file so things like the olpc boot splash could be made
> by changing the file (we should probably rename it from "glow" to
> something more fitting then though).
Unfortunately I don't know enough about the architecture of plymouth
to be able to comment on the implementation.
Peter
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:26:13 -0400
From: Ray Strode <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: olpc boot splash
To: Peter Robinson <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi,
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Do you know what the policy is for getting plymouth plugins upstream?
>>> or do we keep it as a separate thing?
>> I've kind of flipped-flopped over whether all plugins should go
>> upstream in the past. ?In many ways it makes a lot of sense for
>> plugins to go upstream, since the plugin API isn't stable, the project
>> isn't that big, etc. ?On the other hand, we don't want plymouth
>> tarball releases to get too huge either.
>>
>> We do want to make sure that the plugins are generally useful though.
>> I guess what I'm saying is, I think we want plugins upstream that
>> aren't very distro specific.
>
> If that's the case you need to have published docs how to build
> packages that can link against the core plymouth to make it easy to
> build against.
Note I'm not saying that the OLPC plugin should be built out of
tree--quite the opposite. The point of the mail was to discuss ways
to intergrate it.
>> The way we get around the distro-specific problem currently is we have
>> configure options ?--with-logo , --with-background-color etc. ?By
>> default these values are a made up "bizcom" logo and a gray color, but
>> Fedora, for instance, sets the logo to the fedora logo and the
>> background to blue. ?Plugins source these values to figure out what to
>> show. ?This way the "fade-in" plugin shows bizcom fading in and out by
>> default, but on Fedora it shows the fedora logo fading in and out
>> (likewise for the other plugins).
>
> How would that work for things like Fedora remixes where there would
> well be two logos like in the olpc demo (although the remix logo might
> not be used as it might not be Fedora).
So what I was saying is we already have --with-logo. This gets turned into
PLYMOUTH_LOGO_FILE
which can be referenced in the code. We can add --with-small-logo, or
--with-emblem or whatever, too.
This way, you have one distro defined logo for the center of the
screen, and one distro defined logo for the corner.
>> The configure options solution isn't great, though. ?What if your
>> background is a gradient instead of a solid color? We solved that
>> problem by adding --with-background-color-start/end-color-stop
>> options. ?Clearly, though adding more and more configure options
>> doesn't scale.
>
> Well that wouldn't work really great with the XO as the OpenFirmware
> goes through to to the bootanim so right from power on through to GUI
> is the one colour, a bit like the Macs. I would have thought a single
> colour would be the simplest of all options.
There's no problem with using a solid color background. Different
plugins do different things, for plugins that do a solid background
there's
--with-background-color
which gets turned into
PLYMOUTH_BACKGROUND_COLOR
out of the box it's gray, on fedora it's blue, in ubuntu it's orange
(or whatever). The point is to provide a way for the splash to adapt
itself to the distro. Of course, you can ignore
PLYMOUTH_BACKGROUND_COLOR and just use black, white, or whatever, if
that's what the splash calls for.
>> The OLPC plugin seems to have the same sort of problem. ?It has an XO
>> logo and a fedora logo in it. ?Also it has an arrow based on the XO
>> logo. ?We can't really upstream those things, because they're not
>> useful outside of olpc/fedora . ?So some things we could do:
>
> I disagree as there's already debXO and most of the OLPC stuff in
> ubuntu as well so it could easily be used by 3 different distros, and
> the OLPC Server project which could/would also use it wants to
> eventually be based off CentOS rather than Fedora.
My point here is, the plugin has an image in it that shows a fedora
logo. If we upstream that, then when it's running centos it will show
a fedora logo... We need to make it work in such a way that we aren't
shipping distro specific (and trademarked) logos in the upstream
tarball.
Basically, from an upstream point of view, we want to be as friendly
as we can to distros/integrators as possible.
--Ray
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
plymouth mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/plymouth
End of plymouth Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6
**************************************
