Re: more thoughts on gconfd situation

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

seth vidal <skvidal phy duke edu> writes:
>  I know this must becoming tiresome but I had some more
> questions/thoughts on gconfd. I was looking at skipjack and I noticed
> gconf-sanity-check-1. I looked through the source and it appears to
> check if locking works, then check if the lock you currently has makes
> any sense.
> Sort of like what gmc does if you run it as root, it would be great if
> gconf-sanity-check did:
> 1. prompted the user to tell them something is amiss and gives them the
> option of killing the login now
> 2. MAYBE gave them the option of attempting to force-clear the lock if
> they think everything is a-ok. I know this is ugly but it would get
> around the crash and nfs won't release-the-lock problems in the short
> term. Then again 2.4.18 might have fixed some of the nfs locking
> problems - I should look into that in more details
> 
> At the very least have the default gnome-session run
> gconf-sanity-check-1 to warn the users if something is borked.
> 
> I looked through gnome-session in skipjack and I didn't see any
> reference to gconf-sanity-check.
> 

Right, the thing is that gconf-sanity-check-1 doesn't have a GUI,
so running it in gnome-session is no good.

I figure for skipjack if gconf is hosed, Nautilus survives OK, only
Galeon gets really confused - while for the next release with gnome 2,
hosed gconf results in total implosion, and gconf-sanity-check-2 will
probably run in gnome-session.

In any case, it's a bit late in the release cycle (past all public
betas) to add something like this to gnome-session I think.

Havoc