"Pierre Habouzit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well that wasn't what I understood, but I'm really not a D-Bus expert
at all :) Though it doesn't makes sense to let the D-Bus connector be a
separated component as you then only pull the library which is of a
reasonable size.
I'm no dbus expert either, but my description of the current situation is
based havilly on this part of the
message martin sent:
"martin f krafft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Currently, the netconf control socket is implemented using,
a pseudo-rfc822-based protocol (see [1] for some information).
Many people have suggested using dbus for this, but I always refused
because I did not want the dependency. I always wanted to make dbus
optional, i.e. provide netconf-dbus which, when installed, links
netconf in with the dbus infrastructure. However, that would be
independendent of the control socket, for which I still need
a protocol.
Now I don't really see a good reason to have a seperate package
either, as the dependecy on the dbus library is only ~300KB
which seems reasonable to me. Especially if the current ifupdown
is still available for embeded systems that really need that space.
But of course, I'm just a mere user, so ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
