Hi, On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 23:00 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 20:50 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:11:12PM -0400, Kelly wrote: > > > 1) Is there sufficient interest in having the system-config packages > > > split into data and GUI components so there might be Qt/KDE versions in > > > the future? > > > > I don't know about "sufficient", but there's interest in doing that for > > privilege-separation reasons. Being able to use alternate front-ends comes > > for free. > > Exactly. And moving the back-ends to somewhere central (e.g. fd.o) and > adding the front-ends to the actual desktop projects (e.g. GNOME, KDE) > is what we really want. That way we get all the distros/OS's to rally > around the same code base and the user experience as a whole becomes > better and more integrated. This partly relies on all distros actually wanting to use the same codebase ;-P, I don't take that as a given. Has some potential for NIH syndrome. > That's already been happening with all the HAL/NetworkManager/GNOME's > Project Utopia/KDE's Solid stuff and we're only going to do more of this > in the future; not less. With some of the PolicyKit stuff I talked > about > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-March/msg01211.html > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-March/msg01212.html > > it will be, for example, a patch around 100-200 lines to GNOME's clock > applet to provide the same functionality we today have in I take it that you mean 100-200 lines of glue code in addition to the (not yet) separate frontend and backend that communicate via dbus? Because frankly I'd be seriously amazed if the functionality in s-c-date could be replicated with so few code. > system-config-date. And it won't have to run as root; we can configure > it such that laptop users don't have to auth, admins can lock it down, > yadayada etc. etc. etc. > > (The good thing, also, is that most of the hard work on PolicyKit is > already done [1]; I plan to land it early in the Fedora 8 cycle and then > go on a spree to integrate it with GNOME where applicable.) > > So, in other words, I guess I'm saying that at least my point of view is > that much system-config-* is a dead-end for all but really Fedora > centric stuff that don't apply to other distros/OS'es. So my advice to > people asking if it's a good idea to write Qt front-ends would be to > start helping out on integrating these features in the respective > desktop environments. Having UI and logic better separated would actually make it easier to bring back meaningful text/command line apps which is a good thing. > Of course, this task is a lot harder than doing s/GTK+/Qt/ to some > source code; it actually requires that you come up with an architecture > and design that can work on all distros and don't do silly things like > running X11 apps as root. But I think in the end, it's a lot more > rewarding doing this than just Qt-ifying code; I think it also helps > create a better user experience. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
