Hello,

First of all, I do not work for Fedora. I happen to use it, that's about
it. Please don't blame Fedora for my less-than-perfect patch.

I did the paprefs patch to make the upgrade process easier but it seems it
makes it harder so I suggest we forget about the paprefs migration to
gsettings and stick to gconf.

In this case, I don't really see a problem with the upgrade :
By default, module-gsettings is disabled and module-gconf stays enabled and
nothing will change if the distribution maintainer does nothing.

If a distribution wants to move to gsettings, it could do so during a major
upgrade of the distro (that would probably update Gnome, the kernel and
would require a session restart). They could decide to enable both modules
- so that old programs keep working and new ones could use the new module -
or switch completely to gsettings, after they make sure all programs
packaged by the distribution have a migration script.

What do you think ?

Sylvain


2016-09-11 8:50 GMT+02:00 Tanu Kaskinen <ta...@iki.fi>:

> On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 10:24 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 10:26 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 21:58 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 02:06 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 09:06 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So unless MATE and co. are actually using it, I don't think it's
> a bad
> > > > > > idea to drop it (the paprefs dep can be upgraded to latest PA
> with
> > > > > > gsettings-only support).
> > > > >
> > > > > If the data migration is not entirely smooth for users, I want to
> let
> > > > > distributions choose when to drop gconf support.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, making sure there's a smooth transition is important, but IMO
> it's
> > > > orthogonal to supporting GConf. It's not great to have GSettings as
> an
> > > > option and then push the decision of whether config should break or
> not
> > > > out to distribution.
> > >
> > > Do you mean that it's worse to provide a gsettings option that has
> > > glitchy data migration than to provide no gsettings option at all? I
> > > think that depends on how high distributions set their bar. If I was a
> > > distribution maintainer, I would stay with gconf until a smooth
> > > migration is available. If all distribution maintainers are like me,
> > > then I agree, we should block gsettings support until this is fully
> > > sorted out, but if I've understood correctly, Sylvain is working on
> > > Fedora, and his patches are less-than-perfect in this regard, which
> > > suggests to me that Fedora perhaps doesn't care that much about the
> > > migration problems.
> >
> > We shouldn't block it, but I do think we should recommend that people
> > hold off switching until we have a clean migration path.
>
> Certainly. This needs to be explained in the release notes, and
> gsettings should be disabled by default (like it is in this patch).
>
> --
> Tanu
> _______________________________________________
> pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
> pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss

Reply via email to