Hi Richard,
It's really a good news. I am currently working on porting
Devicekit-power to Solaris and engaged in replacing udev and sysfs
related code with Solaris ones that implement the same functionality.
I will start working on the branch to get Solaris supported.
Best Regards,
Lin
On T
David:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:10 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
I have pinged the Sun team working on DeviceKit and suggested they
be better about communication with upstream by sending some status
to the devkit-devel mailing list.
Thanks.
I heard from Lin Guo at Sun that he has followed up
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:10 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> I have pinged the Sun team working on DeviceKit and suggested they
> be better about communication with upstream by sending some status
> to the devkit-devel mailing list.
Thanks.
> Also, Solaris has a security rule that requires that user
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 22:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/7/28 Joe Marcus Clarke :
> > We need DK first. Unfortunately, DK doesn't seem to look very portable.
> > Unlike hal which had directories for platforms backends, everything
> > seems to just be monolithic and udev-based. I think it
2009/7/28 Joe Marcus Clarke :
> We need DK first. Unfortunately, DK doesn't seem to look very portable.
> Unlike hal which had directories for platforms backends, everything
> seems to just be monolithic and udev-based. I think it would be a bit
> easier to get a FreeBSD port going if things loo
Colin:
Though, probably the main reason why there has not much of a drive to
add PolicyKit to Solaris is because there has not been much need. To
date, Sun has not had much of a problem integrating the GNOME stack
without having PolicyKit available. I am sure there are some features
that Sola
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Though, probably the main reason why there has not much of a drive to
> add PolicyKit to Solaris is because there has not been much need. To
> date, Sun has not had much of a problem integrating the GNOME stack
> without having PolicyKit ava
Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/7/24 David Zeuthen :
>> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
>>> Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
>> It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
>> Because if this is so, we need to change some of our p
David:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
Because if this is so, we need to change some of our plans; in
particular move the "make porting easier
On 24 Jul 2009, at 19:13, Karl Lattimer wrote:
I think we could really benefit from a ux.gnome.org site for
demonstrating new ideas and creating concrete mockups and cataloging
testing data from various organisations who are performing usability
testing or have in the past.
Probably a bit OT
Hi Richard,
This is really a good news. I juts tested the build on Solaris and
succeeded after commenting out all code related to Policykit (because
Solaris does not ship Policykit currently). I also CCed the engineer who
is responsible for the porting of Devicekit-power to Solaris.
Regards,
Jed
2009/7/24 David Zeuthen :
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
>> Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
>
> It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
> Because if this is so, we need to change some of our plans; in
> particular move
On 24 Jul 2009, at 18:29, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Has there been any movement with regard to the mouse-over pop-up menu
criticism that I pointed out--that it breaks the metaphor and
there's no
precedent for it? There wasn't any response on the blog post[1] from
the
parties involved with cre
Am Donnerstag, den 23.07.2009, 10:43 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
Kalager Schaller:
> My hope is that someone like the release team would issue a statement
> with what our guidelines are currently
After the discussion here I don't see a need for this. Anyway, to
summarize what I've read:
GNOME
On 22/07/2009, at 3:54 PM, Calum Benson wrote:
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are
arguing about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people
using said OS
is what this is really about. And appare
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM, William Jon McCann <
william.jon.mcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Jason,
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Jason D. Clinton
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Calum Benson
> wrote:
> >>
> >> So if it turns out that the GNOME community like the genera
> [1] http://blogs.gnome.org/calum/2009/07/14/control-center-refresh/
wow I can't believe I missed this, and didn't read the accompanying wiki
page http://live.gnome.org/UsabilityProject/Whiteboard/ControlCenter
I'm such a bad citizen at times :(
Thanks for pointing to this work, seems Sun have
Hey Jason,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Calum Benson wrote:
>>
>> So if it turns out that the GNOME community like the general direction
>> we've suggested for the control center, then sure, I'd certainly like to see
>> us widen out
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Calum Benson wrote:
> So if it turns out that the GNOME community like the general direction
> we've suggested for the control center, then sure, I'd certainly like to see
> us widen out the discussion to visual panels as well.
Has there been any movement with
The perception, at least from me personally, is that Sun isn't doing a
very good job at *working* with the GNOME community. Case in point, if
RBAC or Visual Panels are oh-so-much-better, why the heck are you guys
not trying to push it for non-Linux?
I can't speak for RBAC, but re Visual Panels,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 04:58 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Sun is already working to add DeviceKit support to Solaris
It would be good to the devkit-devel mailing list know about this.
Because if this is so, we need to change some of our plans; in
particular move the "make porting easier" up the pr
Morning folks ;-)
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 14:21 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
>> On the other hand, its possible we could do better tracking this stuff,
>> is there a l.g.o. page that I can visit that shows me what are the blocker
>>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> I think the pointlessness (isn't it a beautiful word? :)) of flaming Sun
> is that the argument was not just about Solaris. Platform independence is
> a good thing for other platforms (*BSD/Mac?/Windows?) in itself.
I agree with you with one
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 14:21 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
> On the other hand, its possible we could do better tracking this stuff,
> is there a l.g.o. page that I can visit that shows me what are the blocker
> bugs in the platform for any given supported system ?
bugzilla.gnome.org pro
Jason:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
about is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people
using said OS is what this is really about. And apparently even Sun
doesn't think so since they no longer invest the same level of resources
in it
Hi,
> FWIW, I've been advocating for a while that, for example, GStreamer
> should aim to provide everything an application needs - ie. a complete
> framework. This came up when Cheese was being ported from HAL to use
> libgudev for device discovery. Now, the actual device interaction
> already ha
Jason D. Clinton, Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:06:36 -0500:
> Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
> about is relevant.
I think the pointlessness (isn't it a beautiful word? :)) of flaming Sun
is that the argument was not just about Solaris. Platform independence is
a good
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> I am extremely grateful for all that Sun has done to move GNOME forward over
> the years--indeed much of that has benefited everyone including Linux. But,
> pardon me for pointing out the pink elephant in the room: why doesn't Sun
> just a
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 23:29 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 18:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >
> > For Bluetooth, another Linux only thing for now, the answer is the
> > same;
> > we probably don't need Bluetooth specific APIs - mostly because we
> > already abstract the us
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing
about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--actual people using
said OS
is what this is really about. And apparently even Sun doesn't think
so since
they no lon
Hi David,
You know, maybe if the non-Linux platforms actually participated in
_designing_ and _developing_ the core plumbing bits, threads like this
wouldn't have to happen.
It would be a lot better if non-Linux platforms, like Solaris is in this
respect, actually started participating much
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
>
>> If you guys working on DeviceKit-* are willing to have different
>> backends, then that sounds fine. It's not a complete answer, but it
>> fills in the massive gap that removing HAL left. If not, then we have
>> to think about the story G
On 22 Jul 2009, at 19:30, David Zeuthen wrote:
You know, maybe if the non-Linux platforms actually participated in
_designing_ and _developing_ the core plumbing bits, threads like this
wouldn't have to happen.
Anyway, if SUN started changing this behavior then maybe it would be a
lot easi
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:40:51PM -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> pardon me for pointing out the pink elephant in the room: why doesn't Sun
> just admit that (Open)Solaris is a dead-end?
Everyone: Please refrain from posting to any replies to this email or
anything which followed up on this ema
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 18:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
>
> For Bluetooth, another Linux only thing for now, the answer is the
> same;
> we probably don't need Bluetooth specific APIs - mostly because we
> already abstract the useful Bluetooth stuff in GVfs and PulseAudio.
Actually, not quite. Th
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:36 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
>
> I agree with a lot of what you say, except:
>
> > b. Everything in the core platform _needs_ to work on all three major
> >platforms:
> >- POSIX/X11
>
> This isn't a platf
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:10, Colin Walters wrote:
This is really the *only* one I can think of. TSOL vs SELinux isn't
really relevant here since GNOME core doesn't really do much with
SELinux currently.
(It does enough that we've had to patch bits out of the Nautilus file
properties GUI, in
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:07 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 2. We need to actually have some documentation telling app developers
> _what_ the core platform is. We have some of this already but,
> at least in my eyes, there's still too many libraries of varying
> quality.
>
> For 2., my
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
I agree with a lot of what you say, except:
> b. Everything in the core platform _needs_ to work on all three major
> platforms:
> - POSIX/X11
This isn't a platform really. Which is really the entire debate here.
They're enough, alon
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 16:08 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Karl Lattimer
> wrote:
> That's not arrogant, arrogant would be someone making a
> sweeping
> statement like nobody uses solaris so lets just not care about
> it, when
>
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:50 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> > I think it makes sense to continue to have GNOME work in the basic
> > "POSIX+X11" mode, i.e. gnome-power-manager just calls exit(0) if
> > devicekit-power isn't running. But be
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> That's not arrogant, arrogant would be someone making a sweeping
> statement like nobody uses solaris so lets just not care about it, when
> no evidence is provided to back that up.
Are you really going to make the argument that Solaris do
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:47 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> +1 for Lennart here,
>
> What exactly does *your* email add to this discussion?
>
>
> you don't even know what you are talking about
>
> That's a terribly arrog
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> +1 for Lennart here,
What exactly does *your* email add to this discussion?
> you don't even know what you are talking about
That's a terribly arrogant statement.
> and the comment is not helping to solve any problem.
What's the p
2009/7/22 Lennart Poettering :
> On Wed, 22.07.09 13:40, Jason D. Clinton (m...@jasonclinton.com) wrote:
>
>> > However, for people who make their living developing GNOME software, IMHO
>> > it behooves them as professional open source software engineers to respect
>> > the requirements of the othe
Really, please don't turn this thread to an aggressive flamewar. Sun's
entitled to what they want with their time and money; if they think
OpenSolaris is the way to go, they're free to pursue it, and personally
I wish them good luck. Even if I'm not an OpenSolaris user, I think that
biodiversity in
On 07/22/2009 02:21 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
> Schaller wrote:
>> So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
>> and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
>> system as opposed to a d
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> I think it makes sense to continue to have GNOME work in the basic
> "POSIX+X11" mode, i.e. gnome-power-manager just calls exit(0) if
> devicekit-power isn't running. But beyond that is hard.
I should add that despite it being hard, the di
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Calum Benson wrote:
>
> It goes without saying that I'd be disappointed if GNOME were to take any
> official Linux-only stance. Sun has contributed a great deal to GNOME both
> technically and financially over the years.
Definitely, Sun's contributions have been
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> Please don't turn this in pointless and off-topic flamewar about the
> point or pointlessness of Solaris.
Obviously the alleged pointlessness of something that we are arguing about
is relevant. Whether or not there are--you know--act
On Wed, 22.07.09 13:40, Jason D. Clinton (m...@jasonclinton.com) wrote:
> > However, for people who make their living developing GNOME software, IMHO
> > it behooves them as professional open source software engineers to respect
> > the requirements of the other people who will be using the code t
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Calum Benson wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>
> OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount of
>> work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my free
>> time.
>>
>
> That's certainly true
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 16:27 +0100, Calum Benson wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>
> > OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount
> > of
> > work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my
> > free
> > time.
>
> That's cert
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schaller wrote:
> So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
> and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
> system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
I dont think any
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager
Schaller wrote:
> So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
> and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
> system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
>
Why would we
On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:56, Johannes Schmid wrote:
OK, I can install all those in a virtual machine but just the amount
of
work I had to put in for basic testing cannot be really done in my
free
time.
That's certainly true for many individual contributors, which is why I
also said we ough
Hi!
> Now, there's no denying that until fairly recently, it was hard for
> most non-Sun contributors to even test their stuff on Solaris, so you
> could argue we're reaping what we sowed to some extent on that front.
> Nowadays, though, OpenSolaris comes on a LiveCD and runs in VirtualBox
>From a user perspective, and I know this is a very tiny sample, but out of
the 230 responses to the Friends of GNOME survey of those who gave money,
30% indicated that they use GNOME applications on multiple platforms.
That's a significant percent of those who responded to they survey - just
somet
On 22 Jul 2009, at 12:50, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward
and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop
system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system.
This is by no means an "
Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009, à 15:47 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> AFAIK, we only depend on stuff where it's possible to have a backend on
> non-linux platforms. As Lennart mentioned, it's the case with PA. As
> Andre explains, it's also the case for DK. Are there cases where this is
> not true?
Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009, à 14:16 +0200, Andre Klapper a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
> Kalager Schaller:
> > A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
> > that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platfor
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Christian Fredrik
Kalager Schaller:
> A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
> that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
> development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choic
On Wed, 22.07.09 12:50, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller (ura...@gnome.org)
wrote:
> A topic that was discussed in the hallways in Gran Canaria is the fact
> that GNOME has gone from not letting non-linux platforms hold back
> development of features (ie. introduction of HAL) to making choices
63 matches
Mail list logo
