On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Rémi Cardona <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Le 19/03/2009 15:23, Robert Piasek a écrit : >>> >>> Feel the trend? gnome-base/gnome-panel will follow soon. Lets make this >>> global. Unless we decide that PolicyKit is the future and make it >>> compulsory). >>> >>> If no one complains, I will make the changes in a couple days. > > That seems reasonable. ACK from me. > >> I think it would be also good idea to add policykit support and finally >> unmask >> it. It seems some packages have hardcoded --without-policy-kit / >> --without- >> policykit and some others add policykit to package.use.mask (btw can it be >> unmasked by user from portage level??). >> >> I've been playing with policykit for a while now and never had any real >> problems with it. I would gladly help to support it by default. > > It's unfortunately not that simple. Some applications require very little > from PK (the clock applet from gnome-panel is one of those iirc). > > But some others (I'm looking at you, gnome-power-manager) just fail > miserably if a specific policy file isn't installed. So for each package > that uses PK, we need to come up with a default policy file that fits with > Gentoo tradition. > > Bottom line, none of us took the time to do this because we just didn't have > the time to take care of this. We could definitely use some help to figure > out what to ship as "reasonable" defaults to our users. > > Cheers, > > Rémi > >
The problem would be a simple fix if PolicyKit supported groups and we could just say "give all access to those in the wheel" group as a reasonable default. But alas, it does not. Arguably we can probably patch that in and just be done with it. Unless someone has some better ideas for a reasonable default. (IMHO, removing all of PolicyKit is a reasonable default but it looks like going forward GNOME is just using it without really any documentation or any forethought into the real world implications of PolicyKit and the inherent support/issues with ConsoleKit) -- Doug Goldstein
