Re: [sabayon] common GSettings schemas

[Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>]

On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:51 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:

[CCing sabayon-list for input on the lockdown schemas.  Sabayoners,
please refer to the thread at
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnomecc-list/2010-May/msg00028.html ]

> The idea is that since cc writes to them and s-d reads them, neither of
> them is a "more natural" place than the other.
> 
> Additionally, we want to encourage application developers to hard-depend
> on these schemas.  That pill is a lot easier to swallow when it's just a
> few XML files and not all of gnome-settings-daemon.

>From a casual look at
http://live.gnome.org/ControlCenter/GSettingsMigration , I see several
cases:

1. Keys only used in g-s-d, but defined elsewhere.  An example
is /desktop/gnome/thumbnail_cache/maximum_age from the housekeeping
plugin.  The wiki already mentions that these schemas live in libgnome
and they need to be moved elsewhere.  Maybe a powertweaks GUI would like
to access these keys as well.  That key in particular sounds like it
should live in gnome-desktop (where the gnome-desktop-thumbnail code
lives); other keys may need to be moved elsewhere.  We have "preferences
for very specific code" like that thumbnail_cache stuff, and
"desktop-wide preferences that don't have a good place"
like /desktop/gnome/applications/browser.  The former should live in the
same place as the code that implements their function; the latter should
probably live in gnome-desktop, or the proposed "schemas-only" module.

2. Keys only used in g-s-d and g-c-c.  For
example, /apps/gnome_settings_daemon/xrandr.  It is fine to leave the
schemas in g-s-d.  I don't think we need to worry about either place
being "more natural" --- g-c-c doesn't work without g-s-d running, so
g-s-d is the correct place for these schemas.

3. Lockdown.  I'm not sure if this is a special case.  Having the
lockdown schemas in gnome-desktop would make it easy to distribute them
along with the other desktopwide schemas.  On the other hand, having a
separate, schemas-only module for lockdown schemas may make it easier
for sysadmins to tweak them (but wouldn't they be using Sabayon and not
messing with schemas directly?).  I don't know.

  Federico