Hi Richard,
It's really a good news. I am currently working on porting
Devicekit-power to Solaris and engaged in replacing udev and sysfs
related code with Solaris ones that implement the same functionality.
I will start working on the branch to get Solaris supported.
Best Regards,
Lin
On
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:10 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
I have pinged the Sun team working on DeviceKit and suggested they
be better about communication with upstream by sending some status
to the devkit-devel mailing list.
Thanks.
Also, Solaris has a security rule that requires that users
David:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:10 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
I have pinged the Sun team working on DeviceKit and suggested they
be better about communication with upstream by sending some status
to the devkit-devel mailing list.
Thanks.
I heard from Lin Guo at Sun that he has followed
2009/7/24 David Zeuthen da...@fubar.dk:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
Because if this is so, we need to change some of our plans; in
Hi Richard,
This is really a good news. I juts tested the build on Solaris and
succeeded after commenting out all code related to Policykit (because
Solaris does not ship Policykit currently). I also CCed the engineer who
is responsible for the porting of Devicekit-power to Solaris.
Regards,
David:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
Because if this is so, we need to change some of our plans; in
particular move the make porting easier
Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/7/24 David Zeuthen da...@fubar.dk:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
Because if this is so, we need to change some of
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Brian Cameronbrian.came...@sun.com wrote:
Though, probably the main reason why there has not much of a drive to
add PolicyKit to Solaris is because there has not been much need. To
date, Sun has not had much of a problem integrating the GNOME stack
without
Colin:
Though, probably the main reason why there has not much of a drive to
add PolicyKit to Solaris is because there has not been much need. To
date, Sun has not had much of a problem integrating the GNOME stack
without having PolicyKit available. I am sure there are some features
that
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 22:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/7/28 Joe Marcus Clarke mar...@freebsd.org:
We need DK first. Unfortunately, DK doesn't seem to look very portable.
Unlike hal which had directories for platforms backends, everything
seems to just be monolithic and udev-based.
Am Donnerstag, den 23.07.2009, 10:43 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
Kalager Schaller:
My hope is that someone like the release team would issue a statement
with what our guidelines are currently
After the discussion here I don't see a need for this. Anyway, to
summarize what I've read:
GNOME
On 24 Jul 2009, at 18:29, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Has there been any movement with regard to the mouse-over pop-up menu
criticism that I pointed out--that it breaks the metaphor and
there's no
precedent for it? There wasn't any response on the blog post[1] from
the
parties involved with
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
Because if this is so, we need to change some of our plans; in
particular move the make porting easier up the
The perception, at least from me personally, is that Sun isn't doing a
very good job at *working* with the GNOME community. Case in point, if
RBAC or Visual Panels are oh-so-much-better, why the heck are you guys
not trying to push it for non-Linux?
I can't speak for RBAC, but re Visual Panels,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Calum Benson calum.ben...@sun.com wrote:
So if it turns out that the GNOME community like the general direction
we've suggested for the control center, then sure, I'd certainly like to see
us widen out the discussion to visual panels as well.
Has there been
Hey Jason,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Jason D. Clintonm...@jasonclinton.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Calum Benson calum.ben...@sun.com wrote:
So if it turns out that the GNOME community like the general direction
we've suggested for the control center, then sure, I'd
[1] http://blogs.gnome.org/calum/2009/07/14/control-center-refresh/
wow I can't believe I missed this, and didn't read the accompanying wiki
page http://live.gnome.org/UsabilityProject/Whiteboard/ControlCenter
I'm such a bad citizen at times :(
Thanks for pointing to this work, seems Sun have
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM, William Jon McCann
william.jon.mcc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Jason,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Jason D. Clintonm...@jasonclinton.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Calum Benson calum.ben...@sun.com
wrote:
So if it turns out that the
On 22/07/2009, at 3:54 PM, Calum Benson wrote:
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are
arguing about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people
using said OS
is what this is really about. And
Jason D. Clinton, Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:06:36 -0500:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
about is relevant.
I think the pointlessness (isn't it a beautiful word? :)) of flaming Sun
is that the argument was not just about Solaris. Platform independence is
a good
Hi,
FWIW, I've been advocating for a while that, for example, GStreamer
should aim to provide everything an application needs - ie. a complete
framework. This came up when Cheese was being ported from HAL to use
libgudev for device discovery. Now, the actual device interaction
already
Jason:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
about is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people
using said OS is what this is really about. And apparently even Sun
doesn't think so since they no longer invest the same level of resources
in it
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 14:21 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
On the other hand, its possible we could do better tracking this stuff,
is there a l.g.o. page that I can visit that shows me what are the blocker
bugs in the platform for any given supported system ?
bugzilla.gnome.org
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the pointlessness (isn't it a beautiful word? :)) of flaming Sun
is that the argument was not just about Solaris. Platform independence is
a good thing for other platforms (*BSD/Mac?/Windows?) in itself.
I agree with
Morning folks ;-)
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Andre Klapperak...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 14:21 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
On the other hand, its possible we could do better tracking this stuff,
is there a l.g.o. page that I can visit that shows me what are the
On Wed, 22.07.09 12:50, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller (ura...@gnome.org)
wrote:
A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choices
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
Kalager Schaller:
A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choices
Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009, à 15:47 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
AFAIK, we only depend on stuff where it's possible to have a backend on
non-linux platforms. As Lennart mentioned, it's the case with PA. As
Andre explains, it's also the case for DK. Are there cases where this is
not true?
On 22 Jul 2009, at 12:50, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
This is by no means an
From a user perspective, and I know this is a very tiny sample, but out of
the 230 responses to the Friends of GNOME survey of those who gave money,
30% indicated that they use GNOME applications on multiple platforms.
That's a significant percent of those who responded to they survey - just
Hi!
Now, there's no denying that until fairly recently, it was hard for
most non-Sun contributors to even test their stuff on Solaris, so you
could argue we're reaping what we sowed to some extent on that front.
Nowadays, though, OpenSolaris comes on a LiveCD and runs in VirtualBox
On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount
of
work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my
free
time.
That's certainly true for many individual contributors, which is why I
also said we
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schallerura...@gnome.org wrote:
So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schallerura...@gnome.org wrote:
So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
I
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 16:27 +0100, Calum Benson wrote:
On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount
of
work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my
free
time.
That's certainly true
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Lennart Poettering mzta...@0pointer.dewrote:
Please don't turn this in pointless and off-topic flamewar about the
point or pointlessness of Solaris.
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing about
is relevant. Whether or not there
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Calum Bensoncalum.ben...@sun.com wrote:
It goes without saying that I'd be disappointed if GNOME were to take any
official Linux-only stance. Sun has contributed a great deal to GNOME both
technically and financially over the years.
Definitely, Sun's
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Colin Walterswalt...@verbum.org wrote:
I think it makes sense to continue to have GNOME work in the basic
POSIX+X11 mode, i.e. gnome-power-manager just calls exit(0) if
devicekit-power isn't running. But beyond that is hard.
I should add that despite it being
On 07/22/2009 02:21 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schallerura...@gnome.org wrote:
So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
system as
Really, please don't turn this thread to an aggressive flamewar. Sun's
entitled to what they want with their time and money; if they think
OpenSolaris is the way to go, they're free to pursue it, and personally
I wish them good luck. Even if I'm not an OpenSolaris user, I think that
biodiversity
2009/7/22 Lennart Poettering mzta...@0pointer.de:
On Wed, 22.07.09 13:40, Jason D. Clinton (m...@jasonclinton.com) wrote:
However, for people who make their living developing GNOME software, IMHO
it behooves them as professional open source software engineers to respect
the requirements of
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote:
+1 for Lennart here,
What exactly does *your* email add to this discussion?
you don't even know what you are talking about
That's a terribly arrogant statement.
and the comment is not helping to solve any problem.
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:47 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote:
+1 for Lennart here,
What exactly does *your* email add to this discussion?
you don't even know what you are talking about
That's a
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Karl Lattimer k...@qdh.org.uk wrote:
That's not arrogant, arrogant would be someone making a sweeping
statement like nobody uses solaris so lets just not care about it, when
no evidence is provided to back that up.
Are you really going to make the argument
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:50 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Colin Walterswalt...@verbum.org wrote:
I think it makes sense to continue to have GNOME work in the basic
POSIX+X11 mode, i.e. gnome-power-manager just calls exit(0) if
devicekit-power isn't running.
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 16:08 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Karl Lattimer k...@qdh.org.uk
wrote:
That's not arrogant, arrogant would be someone making a
sweeping
statement like nobody uses solaris so lets just not care about
it,
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:07 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
2. We need to actually have some documentation telling app developers
_what_ the core platform is. We have some of this already but,
at least in my eyes, there's still too many libraries of varying
quality.
For 2., my view
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:10, Colin Walters wrote:
This is really the *only* one I can think of. TSOL vs SELinux isn't
really relevant here since GNOME core doesn't really do much with
SELinux currently.
(It does enough that we've had to patch bits out of the Nautilus file
properties GUI, in
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:36 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Zeuthenda...@fubar.dk wrote:
I agree with a lot of what you say, except:
b. Everything in the core platform _needs_ to work on all three major
platforms:
- POSIX/X11
This isn't a
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 18:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
For Bluetooth, another Linux only thing for now, the answer is the
same;
we probably don't need Bluetooth specific APIs - mostly because we
already abstract the useful Bluetooth stuff in GVfs and PulseAudio.
Actually, not quite. The
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, David Zeuthenda...@fubar.dk wrote:
If you guys working on DeviceKit-* are willing to have different
backends, then that sounds fine. It's not a complete answer, but it
fills in the massive gap that removing HAL left. If not, then we have
to think about the
Hi David,
You know, maybe if the non-Linux platforms actually participated in
_designing_ and _developing_ the core plumbing bits, threads like this
wouldn't have to happen.
snip
It would be a lot better if non-Linux platforms, like Solaris is in this
respect, actually started participating
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people using
said OS
is what this is really about. And apparently even Sun doesn't think
so since
they no
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 23:29 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 18:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
For Bluetooth, another Linux only thing for now, the answer is the
same;
we probably don't need Bluetooth specific APIs - mostly because we
already abstract the useful
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Jason D. Clintonm...@jasonclinton.com wrote:
I am extremely grateful for all that Sun has done to move GNOME forward over
the years--indeed much of that has benefited everyone including Linux. But,
pardon me for pointing out the pink elephant in the room: why
55 matches
Mail list logo
