Re: xfce4-screensaver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 19:58 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Hi Yves-Alexis
>
> On 2019/01/03 18:16, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 09:54 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > I'll try to reach out to Peter but light-locker looks a bit unmaintained. It's
> > > too late for Buster but it might be worth having options for Bullseye (if we
> > > can have some kind of long-term commitment that xfce4-screensaver will be
> > > maintained).
>
> Ah, I was a bit surprised by this because from your earlier statements I
> was under the impression that light-locker was much better maintained
> and had a much more sound architecture.
I like the architecture better (a simple process just grabbing the screen, and
the locker on a different vt), but upstream (Peter) is not really responsive.
It's basically an unmaintained fork of gnome-screensaver, and GTK3 is moving
fast. I still think there's some time loss maintaining slightly different code
copies, and I fear that in 3-4 years xfce4-screensaver will be in the same
shape as light-locker right now.
>
> > In xfce-team repositories we use git-buildpackage with pristine-tar, could you
> > configure it as well? What's the current way to build the package?
>
> I've somehow managed to avoid that workflow so far, but don't mind
> looking into it for the xfce packages, I might ask for some pointers on
> irc later though.
Sure, no problem. To be honest, migrating from an svn-buildpackage with
mergeWithUpstream properties, I was a bit lost at first, so I kind of
improvised the workflow. If other people have ideas on how to improve it, I'm
open.
I took a look at your repository and it seems that it only contains the
debian/ folder. Is there some kind of “merge with upstream” workflow with git?
>
> > Also is it possible to just *not* support the various xscreensavers stuff at
> > all and just lock?
>
> Yeah that's basically the 'blank' screensaver that just blanks the
> screen and then whatever power management settings is applied will kick in.
Is that compile-time, install-time or configuration-time? I'd like the
defaults to be really sane (like, only blank). If users want some more eye
candy I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't force other to have it as well.
>
> So, what I'll do in the meantime is update the package, move it to
> xfce-team along with git-buildpackage and pristine-tar implemented, and
> then I'll report back to this list?
Sounds fine. Don't hesitate to ping on IRC.
>
> I agreed with what you said in previous mails regarding security, and
> since this is still beta I do believe that it might be better just
> uploading to experimental and skipping this for buster. I'm certainly
> not hard set on that, so if you (and other debian-xfce folk) feel that
> more users might benefit from having it in buster, then perhaps that
> should be considered too.
Let's take a look at first in experimental, and we'll see.
Regards,
- --
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlwuaV8ACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFvmLQf/etef1KqfPea/wh7QvFsG472YqwzQ7aZln6XBdUrSAayEQf4q0KFcqfJF
yNNmTnmj7RZkM1tWaj9WklfkQXBdTHXdMh1M90q5+bvXbk23oMqgh1+cE6ePqBN4
TabelArqZLacM+/qigV7Ir8flwm24C+55wPdnolLoOQTgpGe1W6s0d8cH/Dv7nvU
Ple1DowGwZnOW/ZgX5iomo3cC4BDxkxUHf/YqtgO90rILelNgJizZU9VyN9XRt70
ylH9X2P7SD8JwS/uRChAohVtF9igdLyK2ljcXIIv60mo7EyMeEAsivcKpcZpp/r4
zlSG5E7ADTS43zH621OPiuPchLpyww==
=I+/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: