Re: New module decisions for 2.22

[David Zeuthen <david fubar dk>]

Hi,

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:41 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:16 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 
> > Oh, the use in intlclock should be optional if it isn't already. That
> > does not equate to "pull out PolicyKit deps" as I believe it made
> > Fedoric think. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> PolicyKit is not optional in intlclock :)

Hence why I wrote "should" ;-)

> I *think* Matthias mentioned that he had a patch to make it use PK-gnome
> instead of doing calls by hand, or it may have been someone else; in
> either case I'd love to merge that code.  Do you know where such a patch
> may live?

I think Matthias said he would look at that including porting it to use
PolicyKit-gnome. At least I've been asking him about this for months and
kept giving the answer that it was in your hands and he would do it when
you were done merging ;-). So perhaps now is a good time to do it; for
what it's worth the latest patch in #491462 might give some hints on how
to use PK-gnome including the autotools stuff, setting vendor name +
icon in the .policy file (something missing right now) and so on etc.

> As for making PK optional in the clock, I think I already ditched the
> old code to use a command-to-set-the-time.  We can resurrect it and do a
> configure-time check or something.

Maybe. Or leave it to people who can't or won't use PolicyKit to add
their own checks to the privileged helper (GNOME 2.22 already depends on
a D-Bus version with system bus activation). I don't care.

      David