Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.

Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
>>>>>       * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by
>>>>>         this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on
>>>>> Bonobo)
>>>> There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that
>>>> Imendio did for Maemo.  Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too*
>>>> difficult to merge it back[1].
>>> My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that
>>> there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not
>>> really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would
>>> need a lot of work.

Of course, if nothing else is going to depend on Bonobo and GConf
doesn't expose Bonobo in its API (which I think it doesn't) then we
could just move libbonobo into the gconf source tree, as a private
library, and then complete the D-Bus fixup/merge at our leisure after that.

> We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications
> isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed
> project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs
> was, porting could be an even bigger effort.

GConf->DConf seems like it might be less work per module than
gnome-vfs->gio though...

-- Dan

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]