Re: New libgtop maintainer

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak gnome org>]

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
wouldn't want to end up like some projects where they create several
abstraction layers to ensure portability and then have only one
working implementation underneath.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124