Decoupling gnome-keyring initialization from GNOME compatibility mode

[Brian J. Tarricone]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:58, Guido Berhoerster <gber at opensuse.org> wrote:
> * Brian J. Tarricone <brian at tarricone.org> [2011-09-27 01:43]:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:54, Guido Berhoerster <gber at opensuse.org> wrote:
>>
>> > However as a first step would it be acceptable to decouple the
>> > current gnome-keyring initialization code from GNOME
>> > compatibility mode and add an UI option to allow the use of
>> > gnome-keyring without enabling GNOME compatibility mode (the
>> > latter could then implicitly enable gnome-keyring
>> > initialization)?
>> > The background is that people seem to be interested in
>> > running gnome-keyring but enabling GNOME compatibility mode
>> > has the side effect of starting lots of unwanted stuff (e.g.
>> > gnome-setting-daemon) as a side effect.
>> > If this sounds acceptable I'd be willing to take care of that.

Unless gnome-keyring also includes an OnlyShowIn=GNOME; key, simply
adding the support for autostart-phase and the dbus APIs should be
enough to get it working properly.  If it does have an OnlyShowIn,
we'd need a whitelist of stuff to run, ignoring the OnlyShowIn.  Not
ideal, but perhaps we could upstream a .desktop file that includes
Xfce in the OnlyShowIn.

Of course we'd need to remove gnome-keyring from the code that deals
with gnome support.  That would happen at the same time as the above.

> What I'm currently most interested in is an intermediate,
> short-term solution for the upcoming openSUSE release allowing
> our users to use gnome-keyring without starting all GNOME
> services since there is demand for it. Such an intermediate fix
> does not need to go into Xfce upstream if a better implementation
> will be part of Xfce 4.10, however I will only be able to do this
> if there is agreement on whether this should be addressed at all
> and, if so, on the basic design (e.g. the addition of an xfconf
> setting and UI for that).  What do you think?

I think that's fine (for a non-upstreamed solution), but I'm not
personally interested in working on it.

     -brian