On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 12:07 -0500, Alex Launi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Adam Williamson <[email protected]> > wrote: > As some of you may know, there's a bit of an issue with bamf, > which is > that it requires a change to glib2 that, so far, upstream will > not > accept. I'm trying to help resolve that (in, erm, diplomatic > terms, not > code terms) at present but it's not super easy. > > > Is there a bug report/mailing list thread where this political > discussion is happening? What exactly is the issue?
It's not really political, just trying to get people together to resolve it. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606960 The patch required for bamf uses a mechanism mclasen doesn't want to take into upstream glib (a new extension point). That wasn't completely clear before, now it is. =) I haven't talked to anyone about where they want to go from here, but I guess either someone changes mclasen's mind, the bamf developers re-write their patch to use some other mechanism which mclasen likes more (I think his suggestion is "A dbus interface that is implemented by the desktop infrastructure and used by gio sounds much better to me", ref comment #18) or it doesn't get merged. I'm told that bamf could theoretically work without the patch (though at present they haven't put a conditional in the code so it just fails to build unless glib is patched), but it would be significantly less accurate. As I'm not a coder, I can't get into technical specifics as to whether this is the right way to be doing things at all and so on, I've just been trying to annoy people enough that they keep moving forward on the issue rather than let it rot :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
