About xfce-screensaver.c

[Jarno Suni]

Hi SImon,

Well, I think I have tried to contribute too much and I am afraid it
is not worth the trouble.

It is POSIX shell script, not bash script. Bash might not be installed
in some systems. On the other hand, some systems may have bash as
/bin/sh by default, but I am not sure, if we should support that; I
read somewhere that it is the case in RHEL but have not checked, and I
do not know if that is still the case. Anyway, if the complexity is in
the C code, and there is an issue, system administrators have harder
way to fix the locking system. UNIX systems commonly rely on shell
scripts on various tasks.

Being modular does not mean some code should be duplicated in
different modules. It means the common code is in a separate module.

I was remembering latest comments at
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16223
And as xfce4-screensaver is getting on the way of user one can ask if
that is intentional:
https://gitlab.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-session/-/issues/108

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:41 AM Simon Steinbeiss <simon at xfce.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jarno,
>
> since you've been around a while I guess you're aware about the amount of development or maintenance that goes into certain topics and both xfce4-session and xfce4-power-manager are not "vividly maintained". Since we all do this as our hobby we work on what we enjoy or where we feel something is really broken or needs to be improved, but this is obviously subjective to some extent.
>
> Regarding your topic - I'm aware of the long-time pending patches for xflock4, but there were always reservations about building an "intelligent lock script". Simply summarized: putting something as sensitive as locking on the shoulders of a (then: complex) bash script doesn't sound like something we want to maintain or be responsible for. So we basically stuck to the "simple/dumb" solution that xflock4 is today.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't improve xflock4, but I'd prefer small(er) steps since testing these things is tedious (multiple platforms, multiple lockers) and a manual task.
>
> I agree that there are various components in Xfce that duplicate code or functionality and the overlap between xfce4-session and xfce4-power-manager is definitely there. From my point of view this is one of the downsides of trying to be modular and not being able to rely on a "shell" or "set of components" always being available.
> I would appreciate an overview of the current situation (I also don't know all the relevant code by heart) and how we can improve the relation between session and power-manager with respect to locking.
>
> "some people talk if we should drop support for anything else than xfce4-screensaver" - who and where? I do not see a prominent discussion (but I may also be unaware).
> With xfce4-screensaver's author recently having announced his departure from Xfce (or at least: a change of focus) I don't see us doubling down on that screensaver as our only supported solution.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:19 PM Jarno Suni <sunijarno at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Can someone explain why we have almost identical code
>> xfce-screensaver.c duplicated in xfce4-power-manager and xfce4-session
>> projects? I wonder, if xdg-screensaver could be used more to handle
>> screensaver inhibition? I tried to contact Eric Koegel who added the
>> files to look at my merge request, but I did not get any response. Is
>> he still around for Xfce? I am very disappointed and frustrated about
>> contributing to Xfce. I have reported a bug that requests that screen
>> locking should be done synchronously about 7 years ago and I haven't
>> got response from core developers even after posting a merge request.
>>
>> https://gitlab.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-session/-/merge_requests/20
>>
>> Currently configurability of deskop locker sucks big time and it seems
>> no-one else wants to do something about it even if the primary
>> offering xfce4-screensaver sucks, too. User can choose e.g. preferred
>> file manager and terminal emulator, but some people talk if we should
>> drop support for anything else than xfce4-screensaver. Why? Xfce has
>> reputation of being configurable and flexible DE, so I wonder why
>> doesn't this issue get more attention?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xfce4-dev mailing list
>> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
>> https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev