Re: Application matching in GNOME 3

[Adam Williamson <awilliam redhat com>]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 12:07 -0500, Alex Launi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam redhat com>
> wrote:
>         As some of you may know, there's a bit of an issue with bamf,
>         which is
>         that it requires a change to glib2 that, so far, upstream will
>         not
>         accept. I'm trying to help resolve that (in, erm, diplomatic
>         terms, not
>         code terms) at present but it's not super easy.
> 
> 
> Is there a bug report/mailing list thread where this political
> discussion is happening? What exactly is the issue?

It's not really political, just trying to get people together to resolve
it.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606960

The patch required for bamf uses a mechanism mclasen doesn't want to
take into upstream glib (a new extension point). That wasn't completely
clear before, now it is. =) I haven't talked to anyone about where they
want to go from here, but I guess either someone changes mclasen's mind,
the bamf developers re-write their patch to use some other mechanism
which mclasen likes more (I think his suggestion is "A dbus interface
that is implemented by the desktop infrastructure and used by gio sounds
much better to me", ref comment #18) or it doesn't get merged.

I'm told that bamf could theoretically work without the patch (though at
present they haven't put a conditional in the code so it just fails to
build unless glib is patched), but it would be significantly less
accurate.

As I'm not a coder, I can't get into technical specifics as to whether
this is the right way to be doing things at all and so on, I've just
been trying to annoy people enough that they keep moving forward on the
issue rather than let it rot :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net