Re: [Utopia] Re: Gnome Volume Mgr ==> Gnome Hardware Mgr ??

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:20 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 10:55 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> > So instead of having 5000 lines of gnome-power-manager source code, why
> > not simply add a 500 line patch to gnome-hardware-manager that does
> > exactly this and no more?
> 
> Nod.

g-p-m has 4834 lines of code. 5000 wasn't far wrong. I'm not sure how
you could reduce it to a 500 line patch tho.

The reasons I think it should stay separate are:

1. It has deps that g-v-m doesn't need, e.g. libnotify
2. Some users will want to uninstall it completely (think servers) or
disable it separate from g-v-m.
3. It isn't related to other hardware - it's not like plugging in a
scanner and expecting it to lauch a scanning app, it's monitoring
batteries, UPS's and wireless mice, and providing policy for compound
actions.
4. The release cycle is rapid, and the core code base keeps changing
(which is a benefit of being non-core-gnome).
5. The preferences program would not integrate well with the current
g-v-m UI.
6. It would be harder to build, test and debug as one monolithic
service.

I see it like dhcpd and bind. Without one, they are not very useful, but
useable, when they both are required to share an internet connection.

But they are sufficiently different in code structure and complexity
that they are kept separate.

Plus, the maintenance burden (in changing) for me, would be massive.

-1 in my opinion.

Richard.