Hi,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, David Zeuthen wrote:
> but if someone writes a nice dbus-daemon(1) patch, we
> would probably accept it, right?
>
I suppose... if they had enough test coverage to prove it actually worked ...
Havoc
___
gtk-devel-l
Hey,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:00 AM, David Zeuthen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just for the record, there's no reason that GDBus cannot be made to
>> work very nicely on Win32 or any other platform we care about. GDBus
>> (and D-Bus itself) was des
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:00 AM, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just for the record, there's no reason that GDBus cannot be made to
> work very nicely on Win32 or any other platform we care about. GDBus
> (and D-Bus itself) was designed with this goal in mind.
what functionality is (G)D-Bus supp
Hi,
Just for the record, there's no reason that GDBus cannot be made to
work very nicely on Win32 or any other platform we care about. GDBus
(and D-Bus itself) was designed with this goal in mind.
That is to say, it is possible to make a Win32 build of GLib where
GDBus works as expect in both pee
Hey,
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> So upstream's advice is, don't restart, because apps won't handle it.
>
> If you want to fix all the apps, you can do so. There are no
> dbus-daemon changes required.
If you really wanted to handle the "dbus package got upgraded, le
