On 27 Apr 2011, at 3:16 PM, John Layt wrote: > Hi, > > There's been a short discussion on the GeoClue mailing list related to > resolving the issues we have around their dependencies on gconf and gsettings > and the latest response has been: > >> The GConf dependency is already gone. And I wouldn't take a patch to >> remove the GSettings dependency. There's Qt bindings to access >> GSettings, and GSettings lives in GIO, which is also where the dbus-glib >> replacement (GDBus) lives. I don't think that trying to replace a >> library that's already in the dependencies due to the way packages are >> built is buying us anything but too moving parts. > > Now, I don't really know about GSettings, but I'm guessing this isn't an > acceptable things for us? > > Cheers! > > John. >
Sorry but this has been bugging me..... <soap-box> Honestly, the inclusion of GSettings is IMO another push of "GNOME as a 'standard'" that I for one am not comfortable. Instead of coming forward with Qt bindings (which means heavy overkill for us since it'd also have to be wrapped for KConfig), why didn't they (the G* crowd) step forward and ask KDE what we'd want in a configuration backend and then come up with a real standard instead of the "we push it to Glib so now it IS a standard". </soap-box> As for my vote on this, John, no I don't think this is acceptable :( -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. =============================================================== Developer and Project Lead for the AltimatOS open source project Volunteer Developer for the KDE open source project See http://www.altimatos.com/ and http://www.kde.org/ for more information =============================================================== Please avoid sending me MS Office attachments.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
