On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 15:39 +0200, Alberto Mardegan wrote: > On 03/19/2013 02:16 PM, Tony Espy wrote: > > Ah, the devil is in the details. I wouldn't dismiss the benefits of a > > stable working code-base so quickly. > > > > The semantics already exist in code, the secure store piece is known to > > be secure and works as advertised, and the PAM integration allows > > gnome-keyring to operate without much intervention by the user. This > > wasn't always in the case in the past as others have pointed out. > > > > That said, if we've done the analysis and determined that the UI code is > > too tightly bound to the core logic, then that's another story... > > Oops, I'd better correct myself before I start spreading FUD. :-) I was > sure that the UI code was very tight to the service, but I don't know > where I got that from. > I checked again, and this cannot be farther from the truth. :-) > gnome-keyring-daemon doesn't even depend on Gtk+, so it looks like that > it can be reused. > I didn't investigate how the master password prompt is generated, but > hopefully it's easy to replicate (I'd better ask to the GNOME keyring > maintainers about it, to be sure).
So since this was the reason you were suggesting replacing it (I didn't see another requirements in your original e-mail) do we have any? It seems like while we could build something new for fun, if we don't have a reason we shouldn't. Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
