Re: gvfs gdbus port and the future of HAL

[David Zeuthen <zeuthen gmail com>]

Hi,

(Adding Martin Pitt to the Cc)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Tomas Bzatek <tbzatek redhat com> wrote:
> Bigger problem is HAL, I need your opinion. Here's my proposal:
>
> 1. nuke the hal volume monitor - on Linux it's no big deal but other
> platforms would suffer (remember the systemd flame on d-d-l and question
> about officially supported platforms). Though I guess udisks is probably
> going to be available soon on BSDs.
>
> 2. remove hal-specific code from gphoto2 volume monitor - gudev takes
> priority when available and I suppose it maintains full feature set -
> David, could you please confirm? Also in this case, see my concern above
> about non-Linux platforms.
>
> Both components are still using libdbus and porting them makes no sense.

I think the way it works is that you can build GVfs without HAL and
this is indeed what most vendors (including Fedora) do

So it should be possible to

 1. Leave the HAL code there
 2. Ensure that if HAL is disabled in GVfs configure, that we don't
pull in libdbus-1 or libhal (I think that's how it works already)

Btw, you can check 2. by just ldd(1)'ing the resulting GVfs objects
(e.g. executables and DSOs).

That was certainly the intention with the current setup - which, IIRC,
was done mostly by Martin Pitt. Sounds about right Martin?

> Once the volume monitor part is tested/reviewed, I'd like to merge it to
> master to get it into 1.10/3.2 release. I'm going to look at porting
> core gvfs daemon now.

Sounds good!

     David