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

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Ikey Doherty]

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
>>
>> 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.

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?

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

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

[Ikey Doherty]

On 21/07/16 14:12, 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:

Interesting, wasn't aware, thanks.
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeFlashback
>
> given that it uses Metacity.
>
>> So - assuming its up for grabs, I'd have a couple of things I'd
>> like to do immediately to it:
>>
>>  - Enforce my own coding style (Sorry, I use .clang-format as part
>> of my CI processes)
>
> Changing the coding style is usually a good way to break the history
> of a project, and `git blame` alongside with it. It usually is up to
> the maintainer to decide the coding style, but for established
> projects — even unmaintained ones — history is probably more relevant
> than coding style.

This is true, however the coding style of gnome-software really could do
with being updated. I know the issue with upsetting git blame, however
there are certain no-nos I have when writing anything. That includes
curly braces in all cases, even for single-line if statements, just
for sanity/security. Plus the coding style is that of C89.

>
>>  - Run it via various static analysis tools as part of the cleanup
>
> Don't see anything wrong with this.
>
>>  - Enforce C99 (Ideally I'd like C11 but I don't know if GNOME will
>> permit this? Would be an interesting discussion)
>
> GNOME, as a project, does not mandate a C standard. There are some
> projects that wish to still support compilers that do not wholly
> support the C99 or C11 standards — like MSVC. Considering that
> gnome-screensaver is an X11-only project that has no portability
> outside of Linux and Unix-y OSes, it probably only needs to care about
> GCC and Clang.

This is kinda what I was thinking, but needed clarification in general,
thanks.

>
>>  - Enhance theme-a-bility
>>  - Permit RGBA on top level components (not wallpaper) and update the
>>UI style, to enable proper theming (I need this for Budgie
>> integration). Essentially this would revert locking the UI to the old
>> GNOME Shell styling
>
> Styling via CSS is likely safer than loading C modules that may or may
> not compromise the integrity of the locking screen. I'm not entirely
> sure what "themability" means in this context, though.

Themability, CSS :) As you've indicated, I'd far rather this approach
then to dlopen.

>
>> So with those points in mind, is it up for grabs, would you want me
>> grabbing it, and are my points acceptable? :)
>
> You probably want to talk to the maintainers of the Flashback session,
> to ensure that you're not breaking their expectations; other than
> that, gnome-screensaver is essentially not part of the GNOME session,
> so it's entirely up to you to decide the direction of the project, if
> you wish to own it.
>
> Ciao,
>  Emmanuele.
>

OK that's cool, and yeah I'll try liasing with them to get their
thoughts on it.

Cheers,

- 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?

[Bastien Nocera]

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
> 
> 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.

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.
___
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 Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
> 
> On 21/07/16 14:03, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > You should really rename it. The gnome-screensaver product in
> > Bugzilla
> > is closed, so that screensaver related bugs don't end up there even
> > though we (GNOME) don't use it anymore.
> > 
> > gnome-flashback-screensaver, if gnome-flashback folks want to use
> > it,
> > would be fine. Otherwise, a completely different name would be
> > better.
> 
> Interesting. So up or down a fork is the only way to go here? If so
> perhaps the burden on GNOME would be less if this was done
> externally,
> given the project is entirely closed within GNOME now.

Not so much a fork as a name change. You can keep all the git history,
which will probably prove useful in the longer term. It would probably
be fine to keep it in the GNOME git as well.
___
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 21/07/16 14:03, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> 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.
> 
> You should really rename it. The gnome-screensaver product in Bugzilla
> is closed, so that screensaver related bugs don't end up there even
> though we (GNOME) don't use it anymore.
> 
> gnome-flashback-screensaver, if gnome-flashback folks want to use it,
> would be fine. Otherwise, a completely different name would be better.

Interesting. So up or down a fork is the only way to go here? If so
perhaps the burden on GNOME would be less if this was done externally,
given the project is entirely closed within GNOME now.

- ikey

> 
> You can then rename pages like:
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeScreensaver
> in the Wiki.
> 
> See also:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735123
> 
> And you can see an example canned closure message, which we used after
> triaging the bugs that might still affect GNOME:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=648567
> 
> Cheers
> 
___
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 Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 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.

You should really rename it. The gnome-screensaver product in Bugzilla
is closed, so that screensaver related bugs don't end up there even
though we (GNOME) don't use it anymore.

gnome-flashback-screensaver, if gnome-flashback folks want to use it,
would be fine. Otherwise, a completely different name would be better.

You can then rename pages like:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeScreensaver
in the Wiki.

See also:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735123

And you can see an example canned closure message, which we used after
triaging the bugs that might still affect GNOME:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=648567

Cheers
___
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?

[Emmanuele Bassi]

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

given that it uses Metacity.

> So - assuming its up for grabs, I'd have a couple of things I'd
> like to do immediately to it:
>
>  - Enforce my own coding style (Sorry, I use .clang-format as part
> of my CI processes)

Changing the coding style is usually a good way to break the history
of a project, and `git blame` alongside with it. It usually is up to
the maintainer to decide the coding style, but for established
projects — even unmaintained ones — history is probably more relevant
than coding style.

>  - Run it via various static analysis tools as part of the cleanup

Don't see anything wrong with this.

>  - Enforce C99 (Ideally I'd like C11 but I don't know if GNOME will
> permit this? Would be an interesting discussion)

GNOME, as a project, does not mandate a C standard. There are some
projects that wish to still support compilers that do not wholly
support the C99 or C11 standards — like MSVC. Considering that
gnome-screensaver is an X11-only project that has no portability
outside of Linux and Unix-y OSes, it probably only needs to care about
GCC and Clang.

>  - Enhance theme-a-bility
>  - Permit RGBA on top level components (not wallpaper) and update the
>UI style, to enable proper theming (I need this for Budgie
> integration). Essentially this would revert locking the UI to the old
> GNOME Shell styling

Styling via CSS is likely safer than loading C modules that may or may
not compromise the integrity of the locking screen. I'm not entirely
sure what "themability" means in this context, though.

> So with those points in mind, is it up for grabs, would you want me
> grabbing it, and are my points acceptable? :)

You probably want to talk to the maintainers of the Flashback session,
to ensure that you're not breaking their expectations; other than
that, gnome-screensaver is essentially not part of the GNOME session,
so it's entirely up to you to decide the direction of the project, if
you wish to own it.

Ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
https://www.bassi.io
[@] ebassi [@gmail.com]
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list