Re: dconf

Brian Cameron wrote:
> Ryan:
>> I was not familiar with these bugs.
> I'm glad to bring them to your attention, then, since I think it
> relates to the work in dconf.
>> One thing is definitely true: for reading from the configuration
>> settings, these bugs will not be an issue because you don't need to use
>> the bus or launch the service at all for this to work.
>> For writing, it's really hard to say. This seems like a wider DBus issue
>> affecting all things that use it. Depending on how those bugs are
>> resolved upstream, the result will be different for dconf. It seems, in
>> general, we need to have a better-defined idea of what a session is.
>> I assume the reason that these bugs bother you is because GConf used to
>> work properly under 'su' when it was straight-up CORBA?
> Many people have complained to me about the fact that the configuration
> management can't start unless D-Bus is running.  People don't
> understand the need to run dbus-launch when they just want to run some
> program which uses GConf or dconf.  It makes it awkward to run programs
> outside of normal D-Bus enabled user sessions. 

My question would be is why do these "People" have a desktop in which
there isn't a DBus session bus? Its been there for a very long time now
in most distros, afact. For gnome 3.0, running without a session bus is
going to be like running gnome 2.0 without orbit2. i.e. it ain't gonna
work right.

> The fact that this
> causes problems with "su" is just an example of a wider problem and
> probably the most annoying aspect of the bug to normal users.

Actually, no, the su problem is completely orthogonal, this is something
that needs addressing in DBus itself and is fixable.


> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org

Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]