Re: Dumping gnome-smproxy in 2.14

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:22 +0100, ghee teo wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 
> >Hi Ghee,
> >
> >On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 11:51 +0100, ghee teo wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>(a) Create a new CVS module that just contains smproxy
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >	I've no problem at all with you doing this.
> >
> >	However, do note that you'll also need patches to make GNOME not get
> >screwed up with gnome-smproxy - e.g. bugs #118063, #309506 and #147691.
> >  
> >
>     First of all, let me clarify, this module will be be part of the GNOME
> platform release, but it  is more there who needs it can take it. If those

I think that the point Mark was making was that we don't want this
horror in the platform anymore. What's the point of moving it from one
platform module to another?

> bugs can be fixed it will be a place to putback to.   Meanwhile, these 
> bugs can
> be assigned against this module.
>     I disgree with that above mentioned patches should be included as a 
> prior
> condition where this module is imported to CVS though. It is more likely 
> that
> fixing these bugs will involve changes to more than just smproxy.

You misunderstood what Mark said. It will be up to the maintainer of
that module (a priori, yourself) to handle bugs. However, he pointed you
to a bunch of bugs with existing patches. If you want the bugs to stay,
you're free not to apply the patches ;)

Cheers

---
Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> 
I do like Empire. It's not all wanky about films the way some critics
are. -- Les Dennis