[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Network configuration proposal: gnome-control-center network panel?

Hi list,

this is my next attempt to address this feature:
(see link in Detailed Description of the feature).
nm-applet integration was generally refused from the UX point of view because
of requirement of panel [1]. Now I am trying to explore another option,
using gnome-control-center. Here is draft screencast for [Configure Network]


It adds to nm-c-e some functionality (that used to be provided in desktop with
nm-applet) - turning devices on/off, selecting access point for wireless,
wireless authentication.

The same interface would be used for network enablement in anaconda GUI
(in advanced network storage, repository setup). I also want to add [Configure Network]
button to advanced storage and repo setup screens so that the configuration
can be changed/fixed at these places in case some networking is already enabled
(though I'd prefer to have it accessible permanently at some place like panel)

I want to hear from you if you think it is reasonable to follow this path
and work on issues of this approach:

(see this screenshot for reference:

1) Add single-panel mode option to g-c-c where [All Settings] button is removed,
   making only network configuration accessible.

2) Add device description to g-c-c panel, see there is only 'Wired' and MAC
   address currently.

3) Add window decoration button ([X]) to be able to close the window/app.

4) nm-applet is needed to provide user secrets agent service, though the applet
   itself will not be exposed anywhere in anaconda UI - it will only provide
   dialogs for authentication etc.. I couldn't confirm that it works, probably
   due to hitting this bug:

5) Size of the image - something to be explored yet. In my initial tests I added
   control-center package, nm-applet (negligible), commented out removal of
   some files from ConsoleKit package (required by nm-applet). This made
   change of about 7 MB, but there are definitely opportunities to make it better

So what do you think? Is it a path worth handling the issues?


[1] I still think having panel with network configuration accessible throughout
the whole stage 2 is good, and not user-confusing solution.

[2] I contacted Richard Hughes from g-c-c to check the options, it could be done
with rather trivial patch.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]