Richard
Could you give me an estimation about how much effort we need to migrate
HAL to DeviceKit-power in a distro like Solaris? Are the interface of
DeviceKit-power similar with that defined in HAL specification?
Jeff
Richard Hughes wrote:
During the 2.25 release cycle I would like to mov
[Late to the party, a colleague forwarded this thread to me]
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
While it's refreshing for someone other than me to say this ;-), I have
to admit that getting HAL working on FreeBSD was a good thing. I look
forward to the better API promised by DK.
However, unlike Solaris
On 11/25/08, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't understand why you are restricting it to a single category
> of questions. Debconf allows that and much more, in a (of course)
> structured way.
Right, so you guys need to propose extensions (and code!) on the
PackageKit mail
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 20:42 +0100, Matteo Settenvini a écrit :
> An idea, by the way: as of now, Ubuntu during an update pops-up
> sparingly a window asking what to do with a modified configuration file:
> if keeping the original version of the maintainer, the modified one, or
> what else.
Y
Hi,
Please, both, cool down. We don't need a flame war, and certainly not on
DDL.
Both seems to have their good POV; both seem to have a deteriorated
vision of the other, probably due to past discussions.
For example, saying that PackageKit can "serve only second-grade
distributions", isn't nice
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 13:39 -0500, David Zeuthen a écrit :
> The kernel is definitely part of this and, FWIW, we (the ConsoleKit
> developers) are working with the Linux kernel developers and security
> people to get this right (initially the session id wasn't readable to
> user space etc.).
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 18:26 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> No misunderstanding, sorry. APT is the only packaging system that
> formally _requires_ free input from the user, blocking in the
> transaction.
This is wrong. Any package that does that is considered buggy. I don’t
think there i
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 19:29 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 13:03 -0500, David Zeuthen a écrit :
> > You are of course very free to do whatever you want with your operating
> > system but a couple of points here
> >
> > - ConsoleKit has nothing to do with assigning de
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 13:03 -0500, David Zeuthen a écrit :
> You are of course very free to do whatever you want with your operating
> system but a couple of points here
>
> - ConsoleKit has nothing to do with assigning device permissions; dunno
>know from where you got that idea. Howev
On 11/25/08, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 17:36 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
>> On 11/25/08, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > It is also very unlikely that Debian embraces PackageKit as long as its
>> > target feature set is stick to t
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 17:41 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> However I wouldn’t like if ConsoleKit became mandatory for some uses,
> because its security model reproduces some of the mistakes of
> pam_console. Currently we still replace at_console policies by specific
> group memberships. If this s
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 17:36 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> On 11/25/08, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is also very unlikely that Debian embraces PackageKit as long as its
> > target feature set is stick to the RPM capabilities.
>
> Please don't spread FUD, it's just n
On 11/25/08, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also very unlikely that Debian embraces PackageKit as long as its
> target feature set is stick to the RPM capabilities.
Please don't spread FUD, it's just not true. Please do some research
before making ridiculous claims like that.
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 17:43 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 10:47 -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke a écrit :
> > At some point, we will catch up. However, it would be better if we
> > could have a transition period where both the new and legacy
> > technologies work together t
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 10:47 -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke a écrit :
> At some point, we will catch up. However, it would be better if we
> could have a transition period where both the new and legacy
> technologies work together to allow us to stay current, and give us the
> extra time to port th
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 15:25 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> Right, but I need more than feedback from gentoo, FreeBSD and Solaris
> for these project, we need _code_. The days of easily being able to run
> a desktop GNOME instance without PackageKit, ConsoleKit, PolicyKit or
> DeviceKit are
Luis Medinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 15:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 14:45 +, Luis Medinas wrote:
>>> Not to mention just like Consolekit it requires some tweaking to work
>>> on Linux distros. From what i remember lot's of distros like Debian
>>> and Gentoo r
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 15:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 14:45 +, Luis Medinas wrote:
> > Not to mention just like Consolekit it requires some tweaking to work
> > on Linux distros. From what i remember lot's of distros like Debian
> > and Gentoo required some changes on
Hi,
I think what Richard was trying to say it that _the_ API of the
DeviceKit projects is exactly the D-Bus interface. E.g. we're trying to
be careful to make sure that this stuff can be reimplemented if so
desired. E.g. if you wanted, you could write a Python or Java program
that implements the s
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 14:45 +, Luis Medinas wrote:
> Not to mention just like Consolekit it requires some tweaking to work
> on Linux distros. From what i remember lot's of distros like Debian
> and Gentoo required some changes on HAL to get it working. Someone
> from Gentoo please correct me b
Luis Medinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 12:47 +0100, Denis Washington wrote:
>> Richard Hughes wrote:
>>> DeviceKit-power and DeviceKit-disks just depend on the trivial DeviceKit
>>> daemon which is a thin dbus wrapper around udev.
>>>
>> As udev is Linux-specific AFAIK, is there support for
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 12:47 +0100, Denis Washington wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > DeviceKit-power and DeviceKit-disks just depend on the trivial DeviceKit
> > daemon which is a thin dbus wrapper around udev.
> >
>
> As udev is Linux-specific AFAIK, is there support for any other Unix
> pl
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 12:47 +0100, Denis Washington wrote:
> As udev is Linux-specific AFAIK, is there support for any other Unix
> platform in DeviceKit? If we lost FreeBSD support for instance, that
> would be a regression (hal works there).
DeviceKit (not -power or -disks) is a very small sim
Richard Hughes wrote:
DeviceKit-power and DeviceKit-disks just depend on the trivial DeviceKit
daemon which is a thin dbus wrapper around udev.
As udev is Linux-specific AFAIK, is there support for any other Unix
platform in DeviceKit? If we lost FreeBSD support for instance, that
would be
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:00 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> If the DeviceKit-power daemon does data collection and stuff,
> shouldn't it be then running all the time (and as soon during the boot
> process as possible)?
Sure, you could start them easily at boot (a single DBUS send request
would do it
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 04:19 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > During the 2.25 release cycle I would like to move GNOME Power Manager
> > away from a HAL dependency and onto a new DeviceKit-power dependency.
>
> Will g-p-m break on non-DeviceKit-powered systems or will it
Richard Hughes wrote:
> During the 2.25 release cycle I would like to move GNOME Power Manager
> away from a HAL dependency and onto a new DeviceKit-power dependency.
Will g-p-m break on non-DeviceKit-powered systems or will it handle
this case gracefully, falling back to the current code ?
Che
> interaction e.g. for device locking). If a few core modules (gvfs,
> nautilus, gnome-mount) are ported to hal, we should be in good shape
> for 2.26.
>
You probably mean migrated to DeviceKit (or migrated away from hal)
___
desktop-devel-list mailing li
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, à 18:25 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
>> Q: Is anything else going to use DeviceKit-$foo?
>> A: In the future gvfs will depend on DeviceKit-disks, not HAL
>
> Does it sound possible to port all G
Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, à 18:25 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> Q: Is anything else going to use DeviceKit-$foo?
> A: In the future gvfs will depend on DeviceKit-disks, not HAL
Does it sound possible to port all GNOME away from hal to DeviceKit-$foo
in the 2.26 timeframe?
Vincent
--
Les ge
thanks, Matthias.
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 13:45 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > (thinly veiled self-interest: when is DeviceKit-disks going to be
> > released, so we can dump gfloppy and use DK-disks that instead?)
>
> I don't think there has been a proper DeviceKit-disks release yet.
> The curr
2008/11/24 Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Q: Why is system wide better?
> A: There's no point doing the data collection, statistics profiling and
> calculations in every session on a multiuser workstation. There's also
> the point that at GDM you run a g-p-m instance, which doesn't have
>
Le lundi 24 novembre 2008 à 18:25 +, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> DeviceKit-power is a new mechanism daemon that moves the battery
> profiling and statistics interface system-wide, and also does the
> history recording once per system, rather than once per session. It also
> moves to an interface
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi;
>
> while I really love DeviceKit, there are a couple of questions I'd like
> to have an answer:
>
> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 18:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
>> DeviceKit-power and DeviceKit-disks just depend on the
hi;
while I really love DeviceKit, there are a couple of questions I'd like
to have an answer:
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 18:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> DeviceKit-power and DeviceKit-disks just depend on the trivial DeviceKit
> daemon which is a thin dbus wrapper around udev.
while DeviceKit h
During the 2.25 release cycle I would like to move GNOME Power Manager
away from a HAL dependency and onto a new DeviceKit-power dependency.
DeviceKit-power is a new mechanism daemon that moves the battery
profiling and statistics interface system-wide, and also does the
history recording once per
36 matches
Mail list logo
