Le lundi 08 mars 2010 à 15:54 +0000, Alberto Ruiz a écrit : > I'm growing a bit sick of GNOME having to be in this "limbo" situation > where it can't stick to any technology because downstream > distributions choose not to ship some components by default. Ever wondered why we choose not to ship those components? > PackageKit and PulseAudio are two projects that are pretty well > aligned with the GNOME platform in terms of API technology and goals, > they solve hard problems to solve, they don't have any real contenders > (yes they have problems, but if we wait until they are perfect, we > will never have a platform). So far, I think these projects are clearly not on par with the rest of GNOME in terms of stability and integration. > So my take on this is, embrace those, help downstream to embrace them, > but let's not hold back or we will end up with a half arsed platform > that tries to solve everyone's problems and will end up solving no > one's. I’m still missing the “help downstream to embrace them” part. In previous GNOME releases, the only way to get some of the GNOME components to work correctly was to patch out the pieces based on unusable technologies. So far, new technologies have always stabilized pretty well after a couple more releases (e.g. GIO and devicekit-* for recent successful examples) but specifically for PulseAudio and PackageKit, I have not witnessed significant progress. PackageKit is being made to work thanks to a reimplementation of the D-Bus API (SessionInstaller), and PulseAudio is still pointing fingers at the kernel, without enough apparent progress being made in the kernel. To sum up, I’m certainly not advocating any kind of technology stagnation and I encourage all developers to keep on improving and redesigning software layers, but I also encourage you to have a look behind and wonder whether new technologies were actually successful. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=