Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] Port tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 04:32 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Hi, as you are probably aware, devicekit-power has been deprecated and replaced by upower. upower still ships a compat library libdevkit-power-gobjec, which tracker currently uses, but it's recommended to use the new library libupower-glib. The attached patch ports tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib. The patch is based on my latest patch series, so does not directly apply on top of master. If you prefer, I can rebase the patch on master and resend it. Please do fwiw, I set the minimum version of libupower-glib to 0.9.2, because that is the version I tested the patch with. It most likely should also work with earlier releases like 0.9.0 if that is a concern. Cheers, Michael ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] My tracker-store.journal file is huge
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 04:42 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Hi, so, my ~ is around 12Gb of data, ~/.cache/tracker is ~430 Mb, but my journal files is almost 1Gb! Why is that file so huge? Can I safely delete it or is there a way to shrink it? Have you deleted a lot of resources? A GB is by the way not huge in our perspective. You can't safely delete it unless you are willing to loose all of your RDF data. The better way to remove it is to use tracker-control -r -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] Improve linking against 3rd party libs
On 13/04/10 22:45, Michael Biebl wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I noticed with amazement, that tracker-store has a dependency against
libgtk [1], also the dependencies of e.g. libtracker-client-8.0-0 are
not ideal.
No they're not. You're right.
I started working on that a bit, and attached is a serious of patches.
To see the effect, I prepate a before and after of a few selected
(Debian) binary packages
before
==
Package: libtracker-client-0.8-0
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6~), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.0.2), libdbus-glib-1-2
(= 0.78), libdevkit-power-gobject1 (= 1:0.9.1), libglib2.0-0 (=
2.24.0), libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.18.0), libpango1.0-0 (= 1.14.0), libunac
Package: libtracker-extract-0.8-0
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6~), libexempi3 (= 2.1.0), libexif12,
libglib2.0-0 (= 2.20.0), libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.18.0), libiptcdata0,
libtracker-client-0.8-0 (= 0.8.1)
Package: libtracker-miner-0.8-0
Depends: libc6 (= 2.4), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.0.2), libdbus-glib-1-2 (=
0.78), libdevkit-power-gobject1 (= 1:0.9.1), libglib2.0-0 (=
2.24.0), libgnome-keyring0 (= 2.22.2), libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.18.0),
libpango1.0-0 (= 1.14.0), libtracker-client-0.8-0 (= 0.8.1),
libunac1
Package: tracker
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6~), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.0.2), libdbus-glib-1-2
(= 0.78), libdevkit-power-gobject1 (= 1:0.9.1), libglib2.0-0 (=
2.24.0), libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.18.0), libpango1.0-0 (= 1.14.0),
libsqlite3-0 (= 3.6.23.1), libtracker-client-0.8-0 (= 0.8.1),
libtracker-miner-0.8-0 (= 0.8.0), libunac1, libuuid1 (= 2.16),
zlib1g (= 1:1.1.4), shared-mime-info, dbus
after
=
Package: libtracker-client-0.8-0
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6~), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.0.2), libdbus-glib-1-2
(= 0.78), libdevkit-power-gobject1 (= 1:0.9.1), libglib2.0-0 (=
2.24.0)
Package: libtracker-extract-0.8-0
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6~), libexempi3 (= 2.1.0), libexif12,
libglib2.0-0 (= 2.20.0), libiptcdata0, libtracker-client-0.8-0 (=
0.8.1)
Package: libtracker-miner-0.8-0
Depends: libc6 (= 2.4), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.0.2), libdbus-glib-1-2 (=
0.78), libglib2.0-0 (= 2.24.0), libgnome-keyring0 (= 2.22.2),
libtracker-client-0.8-0 (= 0.8.1)
Package: tracker
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6~), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.0.2), libdbus-glib-1-2
(= 0.78), libdevkit-power-gobject1 (= 1:0.9.1), libglib2.0-0 (=
2.24.0), libpango1.0-0 (= 1.14.0), libsqlite3-0 (= 3.6.23.1),
libtracker-client-0.8-0 (= 0.8.1), libtracker-miner-0.8-0 (= 0.8.0),
libunac1, libuuid1 (= 2.16), zlib1g (= 1:1.1.4), shared-mime-info,
dbus
Great, I will try to integrate these changes with the Harmattan debian
setup.
For now I concentrated on unac, pango, devicekit-power, hal and
gdkpixbuf and only link those libraries/binaries against them, when
they actually use them.
I've tested with binutils-gold to not break anything, but a review is
appreciated.
If possible I'd like to see that merged into the stable branch, too.
Yea, I don't like the way that we do this at the moment. I would much
prefer to have LIBTRACKER_COMMON_{CFLAGS|LIBS} in configure.ac so we
just have one variable there. Each time we move code/modules around in
the code base, these Makefiles get out of date and that's the main
reason for needing these patches.
Great work Michael, thanks.
[1] http://packages.debian.org/experimental/tracker
Thanks for the patches, just a few places I noticed which could be wrong:
- Why do we need pango for t-s-t? At least I couldn't see any reference
with grep to it.
- The reference docs for libtracker-common remove HAL_{CFLAGS|LIBS},
surely we need those since we may have HAL in use there? I suppose your
argument is that the common.la file pulls those in?
--
Regards,
Martyn
___
tracker-list mailing list
tracker-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] Port tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib
On 14/04/10 09:11, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 04:32 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Hi, Hi, as you are probably aware, devicekit-power has been deprecated and replaced by upower. upower still ships a compat library libdevkit-power-gobjec, which tracker currently uses, but it's recommended to use the new library libupower-glib. The attached patch ports tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib. The patch is based on my latest patch series, so does not directly apply on top of master. If you prefer, I can rebase the patch on master and resend it. Please do Assuming of course you refer to the patches you posted here just recently to fix the Makefiles? If so, then no! Please don't rebase for master. It is extra work and for no point whatsoever. I plan to push those changes almost immediately. fwiw, I set the minimum version of libupower-glib to 0.9.2, because that is the version I tested the patch with. It most likely should also work with earlier releases like 0.9.0 if that is a concern. Hmm, from a brief Google for the packages hitting the next Ubuntu version, 0.9.0 looks like the version they're shipping with. I would try to use that if possible. -- Regards, Martyn ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] Port tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 09:52 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: On 14/04/10 09:11, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 04:32 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: [CUT] Assuming of course you refer to the patches you posted here just recently to fix the Makefiles? If so, then no! Please don't rebase for master. It is extra work and for no point whatsoever. I plan to push those changes almost immediately. Looks like this was about another patch. A larger one (not just Makefiles) that was attached to the first E-mail of this thread. -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] Port tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib
On 14/04/10 10:13, Philip Van Hoof wrote: Looks like this was about another patch. A larger one (not just Makefiles) that was attached to the first E-mail of this thread. Hmm? The one attached to the start of this thread is the one being applied - my question is, does the patch in this thread depend on the smaller Makefile patches from earlier? If so, then no rebase should be done, if not, then yes it probably should be done. -- Regards, Martyn ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] Improve linking against 3rd party libs
On 14/04/10 09:44, Martyn Russell wrote:
On 13/04/10 22:45, Michael Biebl wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
- Why do we need pango for t-s-t? At least I couldn't see any reference
with grep to it.
- The reference docs for libtracker-common remove HAL_{CFLAGS|LIBS},
surely we need those since we may have HAL in use there? I suppose your
argument is that the common.la file pulls those in?
Pushed those patches, thanks Michael!
--
Regards,
Martyn
___
tracker-list mailing list
tracker-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] Port tracker from libdevkit-power-gobject to libupower-glib
2010/4/14 Martyn Russell mar...@lanedo.com: On 14/04/10 10:13, Philip Van Hoof wrote: Looks like this was about another patch. A larger one (not just Makefiles) that was attached to the first E-mail of this thread. Hmm? The one attached to the start of this thread is the one being applied - my question is, does the patch in this thread depend on the smaller Makefile patches from earlier? If so, then no rebase should be done, if not, then yes it probably should be done. Just to clarify: this patch is on top of the 5 small Makefile patches. As Martyn has merged them now, the patch should directly apply to current master. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
Re: [Tracker] Editing a tag: SPARQL help wanted
On 10/04/10 09:04, Ivan Frade wrote: hi, Hi, this is not the first time we hear that request. We have two options 1. add extra properties on nao:Tag 2. make nao.Tag subclass of InformationElement i think 2. is fine. Any other suggestion? we can change that for the next week release.mailman/listinfo/tracker-list I have just been checking the specification because I wanted to be sure there was nothing there already for this sort of thing: http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nao/#mozTocId845316 It looks like nao:Description should be used here. We currently don't support this in the ontology. It derives rdfs:comment. Ivan, Jürg, any problems with me adding this for tomorrow's release? -- Regards, Martyn ___ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
