add sdl-freerdp3 as a valid RDP client choice

[petersilva]

close #646

as per discussion in that issue:

• I don't think we should check for sdl-freerdp3 on older systems: It's unlikely to be better than X on them.
• I don't think we need to worry about xfreerdp3 on newer systems, it will likely not be present. If it is present, it is highly likely that it should be removed, so even if the error shows up, it's a real error that the user should fix (by removing it.) so it's good information, and easily addressed.
• I don't think checking for presence of wayland is enough to make the decision to use it, and I don't think re-implementing logic already present in SDL itself is easy or helpful.

but those are all opinions... everybody can have different ideas... I made a PR in case someone thinks it's useful, or not...

(copied on request from @Hi-Angel )

[waffles-dev]

I'm more than happy with this PR in it's current form - I don't think any changes need to be made. I've raised this one with Tibix and he was saying he still has issues on his machine with the SDL version. And I guess he's a bit wary of opening us up to supporting SDL issues that others may have while his is still in such a state.

This isn't to say this is a wasted effort to try and get it, my current assumption is that we'd take it as-is, but it just might take us a little bit of time to getting around to this one - sorry!

[Self-Hosting-Group]

Fedora used sdl-freerdp and not sdl-freerdp3

[akallabeth]

@Self-Hosting-Group that is dependent on compilation options.
names can be:

• sdl-freerdp
• sdl-freerdp3
• sdl3-freerdp
• sdl3-freerdp3

the scheme is sdl<sdl version>-freerdp<freerdp version>

[petersilva]

2nd commit added, added additional choices.

[Self-Hosting-Group]

2nd commit added, added additional choices.

Thanks, with sdl-freerdp the client can now also be found under Fedora. However, without deleting the xfreerdp executable, it cannot be currently given preference (e.g. with Wayland), as the same package contains both clients.

For the sdl3-* variants. Did you do this for a specific distribution? Since I couldn't find any that use this name after a quick search, I personally wouldn't add these names.

[Hi-Angel]

For the sdl3-* variants. Did you do this for a specific distribution? Since I couldn't find any that use this name after a quick search, I personally wouldn't add these names.

As noted above, these can appear depending on the compilation options. Some distro may change options they use making such name appear.

[akallabeth]

@Self-Hosting-Group this is controllable by build options. (way too complicated, but there are just too many different use cases)

• if some distro wanted to ship both, SDL2 and SDL3 versions it is activated automatically.
• the default name is sdl-freerdp (with the optional 3 which allows side by side installation with freerdp 2), but that can be both, SDL2 or SDL3 (depending on which version was compiled)

that being said, FreeRDP 2 is now ending its lifecycle and SDL3 is the preferred choice, the legacy stuff should not matter much anymore.

[Self-Hosting-Group]

the default name is sdl-freerdp (with the optional 3 which allows side by side installation with freerdp 2), but that can be both, SDL2 or SDL3 (depending on which version was compiled)

Note that distributions with newer codebases (e.g. Fedora) no longer include these earlier freerdp/SDL versions.

As noted above, these can appear depending on the compilation options. Some distro may change options they use making such name appear.

Personally, I would simply not insert any executeable names that do not currently exist, in order to avoid bloating the code and for security reasons.

But it doesn't bother me either; I'm happy with the way things are at the moment.

[Twig6943]

Any updates on this? Gnome deprecated x11 with gnome 50 since the last activity on this

[petersilva]

afaict no actual dev has even looked at it. no feedback received. Thanks to the others who have commented, but this doesn't seem any closer to getting pulled.

[waffles-dev]

afaict no actual dev has even looked at it. no feedback received. Thanks to the others who have commented, but this doesn't seem any closer to getting pulled.

I looked at it and gave feedback: #649 (comment)

Where it goes from here, I'm not sure just yet. It's looking like next release is not likely to be very soon, but I'll try to get a final decision/answer for you before that time.

[petersilva]

afaict no actual dev has even looked at it. no feedback received. Thanks to the others who have commented, but this doesn't seem any closer to getting pulled.

I looked at it and gave feedback: #649 (comment)

oops. I guess I didn´t know... I guess it´s hard for me to tell, because without a formal group, I don´t know who is a real contributor and who is not, because it is in an individual developer´s repo. Thanks for your efforts and explanations.

[Hi-Angel]

Maintainers usually have a badge saying something different from "contributor" and "reporter". I think, "collaborator", "owner" and "maintainer", unless I'm confusing some terms with Gitlab

[waffles-dev]

Maintainers usually have a badge saying something different from "contributor" and "reporter". I think, "collaborator", "owner" and "maintainer", unless I'm confusing some terms with Gitlab

For whatever reason it's Tibix as owner, then Levev and myself as Contributors, then everyone else.
But the Maintainer role is there on discord.

[Hi-Angel]

then Levev and myself as Contributors

You are shown as Collaborator

😊

[waffles-dev]

then Levev and myself as Contributors

You are shown as Collaborator

😊

I mistyped. Point still stands.