On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le jeudi 22 octobre 2009 à 14:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson a écrit : > > > > So, I say, leave old apps using gconf alone, and leave the gconf storage > > > alone too. It works (to some degree) and will continue to work (to the > > > same degree) in the future with minimal maintainance. > > > > That means keeping on maintaining GConf for quite a long time. For the > > record, it took us around 8 years to get rid of GTK+ 1.2. GConf is not > > as widespread, but it is already ~600 packages. From the moment > > GSettings is widely deployed, I’d expect at least 3-4 years before being > > able to not install it by default on Linux systems; in the meantime, > > this means starting both daemons in user serssions. And 5-6 years before > > being able to get completely rid of it. > > It would only need to be installed if some app you install requires it, > and it would only run in the session if some app actually runs that uses > it. (Assuming we patch it to exit if the last client connected to it > exits, which I'm not sure happens today.) > > > This plan is clearly less work right now, but it means more maintenance > > work in the long term. > > How can you be sure of that? Any other plan involves first writing and > debugging a new set of software to support the gconf api on something > else, then maintaining it for as long as we would have to maintain > gconf, and this being new software it is likely going to be more work to > maintain.
I think Josselin is talking with his distro maintainer hat on (not as a software maintainer): having to keep GTK+1.2 libs around for so long was a pain. Xav _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list