Re: moving to dbus 0.3x asthe target version for G2.12 [was Re: DBus in G2.12]

["John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp redhat com>]

On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 10:33 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 6/10/05, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp redhat com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 10:23 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > [Moving this off r-t to a broader group that might have more feedback on this :)
> > >
> > > On 6/10/05, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, June 10, 2005 15:22, Ross Burton said:
> > > > > I think the release team need to make a statement about what version of
> > > > > DBus is to be used for any code which can use DBus.  At present I
> > > > > believe gnome-vfs and HAL in CVS are using the DBus 0.3x API, whereas
> > > > > nautilus-cd-burn is still using 0.2x.  As these cannot be easily used at
> > > > > the same time, this needs to be resolved one way or another.
> > > >
> > > > Good point. I think that the distributors that will ship 2.12 will use
> > > > DBus 0.3x. Going with the DBus 0.3x API looks like the more sensible
> > > > solution to me. Is there any reason to stay with the 0.2x API?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I don't know of any reason not to standardize on 0.3x- most
> > > things have already ported AFAICS. d-d-l, anyone object to requiring
> > > everyone to move to 0.3x? (I'm assuming no, but...)
> >
> > I have patches for all core GNOME modules and if they aren't already in
> > CVS it means they were just not applied yet. 
> 
> Are they in bugzilla? :)

So I thought I got most everything in but may have forgotten to commit a
few (or the maintainer never replied during my patch rampage, etc).  If
we can get a list of modules that have yet to be ported I can attach the
patches to bugzilla.
 
-- 
John (J5) Palmieri
Associate Software Engineer
Desktop Group
Red Hat, Inc.
Blog: http://martianrock.com