Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
- From: Cosimo Cecchi <cosimoc gnome org>
- To: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- Cc: Gnome Release Team <release-team gnome org>, Ross Burton <ross burtonini com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:51:10 +0200
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 14:30 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > 2009/4/2 Ross Burton <ross burtonini com>:
> > > On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > >> * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
> > >> this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on
> > >> Bonobo)
> > >
> > > There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that
> > > Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too*
> > > difficult to merge it back.
> > My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that
> > there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not
> > really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would
> > need a lot of work.
> Is it more or less work than finishing the replacement, and porting all
> the apps and developer documentation, as well as writing porting
I add another question here, as a complete dconf/GConf newbie:
is depending on Bonobo/Corba vs DBus the only thing that makes GConf not
useful towards GNOME 3.0 or are there some other
design/preformance/whatever issues requiring a full rewrite to be
We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications
isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed
project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs
was, porting could be an even bigger effort.
] [Thread Prev