[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
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 handle
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 required
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
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 to
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. At
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.).
I
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 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.
Yes,
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 mailing
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
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
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 trivial
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
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
access
15 matches
Mail list logo
