Re: New libgtop maintainer

[Antoine Jacoutot <ajacoutot gnome org>]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 01:13:40PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Robert Roth <robert roth off gmail com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Robert Roth <robert roth off gmail com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > My goals for the 3.12 cycle (as we're getting close to the 3.9 freeze,
> > > > only
> > > > for the next cycle) are to review the buglist of the module, and extend
> > > > it
> > > > to provide library support for various gnome-system-monitor enhancement
> > > > requests, but in the meantime keep it simple and fast enough to back the
> > > > upcoming Usage application.
> > >
> > > Tbh, I think it would be good to start out by reevaluating the
> > > rationale for this library. Do we really need it anymore ? What data
> > > does g-s-m get from it ?
> > >
> > > For storage-related data, gio has probably
> > > encroached into the territory already.
> >
> >
> > You might be right on that, I will check what GIO can do.
> > > For other data, libgtop is
> > > mostly a thin wrapper of /proc, iirc.
> >
> > Thas is true for linux systems, but libgtop also supports some BSDs, and
> > other systems, which don't seem to have a procfs
>
> Before we take this fact into consideration here, perhaps we should
> first find out if a modern GNOME system actually work on BSD. We

It does. I am actually running a full GNOME 3.8.3 installation on OpenBSD.
And part of my job is to deploy such combo on hundreds of machines.

-- 
Antoine