Hi Waldo and list, On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 00:41 -0700, Bastian, Waldo wrote: > The curious that don't want to bother with unpacking tarballs can read > the documentation here: > > http://portland.freedesktop.org/xdg-utils-1.0beta1/
xdg-su really needs to go. Here are just two reasons 1. I don't think we should be encouraging ISV's to use insecure methods to do privileged operations. It's a get-out-of-jail-card that encourages lazy programming. 2. I'm not sure how this would be implemented on Fedora or RHEL and, unless I'm mistaken, the point is to not lock out any OS'es that wants to participate, yes? For the record, I've ranted about this on the Portland list earlier http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/portland/2006-April/000384.html and I thought I made my point. Apparently not. Another point. Quoting from: http://portland.freedesktop.org/xdg-utils-1.0beta1/xdg-screensaver.html > Commands > suspend WindowID > > Suspends the screensaver and monitor power management. > WindowID must be the X Window ID of an existing window of the > calling application. The window must remain in existance for > the duration of the suspension. > > The screensaver can be suspended in relation to multiple > windows at the same time. In that case screensaver operation > is only restored once the suspensions have been restored in > relation to each of the windows > > resume WindowID > Resume the screensaver and monitor power management after > being suspended. WindowID must be the same X Window ID that > was passed to a previous call of xdg-screensaver suspend Two issues with this 1. AFAIK, this can never be implemented in gnome-screensaver because it's fundamentally broken: What happens if the process goes away and the window sticks? What if a process don't have a window? 2. We're trying to solve this already by standardizing on D-BUS interfaces. See http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg-list/2006-May/008139.html for details. I think that Jon McCann, gnome-screensaver maintainer, might explain a lot better than me what the issues here are. -- Don't get me wrong, Waldo. I personally think Portland includes some nifty things and I want ISV's to succeed as much as the next guy. But we all have different views on what interfaces are baked and what interfaces are not. So, frankly, I think what you're doing with pushing for xdg-su and xdg-screensaver is just, and sorry for using strong words, undermining the work already happening in the community. Stuff like PolicyKit and the org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver interface. Please don't include xdg-su or xdg-screensaver. Important work is going on this area and let's not pretend what we have now is good enough. Thank you. Best Regards, David _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg