On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 10:18 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Bastien:
>
> I was not trying to suggest that there was no GNOME portability
> documentation. Instead I was saying that it should not be
> surprising that non-Linux distros (and many popular Linux distros)
> are making very slow progress w
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> As a developer (and working for an OS vendor), I *do* want more OS
> vendors to step up and intensify their participation in the project.
> Yes, more participation from several different OS vendors might slow
> down feature development a bit
David:
On 10/22/12 01:17 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Brian Cameron wrote:
Right. So, you probably are not surprised that things are moving along
slowly either. :)
Actually I'm quite excited about the development pace for GNOME
nowadays - there are lots of coo
Hey,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Right. So, you probably are not surprised that things are moving along
> slowly either. :)
Actually I'm quite excited about the development pace for GNOME
nowadays - there are lots of cool *user-visible* features landing in
new relea
David:
On 10/22/12 01:01 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
But please don't expect others to port GNOME to run on your OS.
I was never suggesting that any others do any sort of port for anyone.
I was only highlighting that the lack of documentation makes things
slow. I am sure that we can improve the
Hey,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Brian Cameron wrote:
> I have heard about this "couple of hours". Is it even possible to
> build the GNOME stack in 2 hours if you run into no problems?
That's not the point. The point is that adapting GNOME to some OS such
as Solaris, Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenB
David:
On 10/22/12 11:50 AM, David Zeuthen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Brian Cameron
wrote:
You are talking about shipping a *complete* and *free* (libre *and*
gratis) graphical desktop environment and you're complaining that you
have to spend a couple of hours *reviewing* the co
Hey,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Brian Cameron
wrote:
> Most readers would likely need
> to review the code to understand what specific power features are
> actually being described here or why they might need logind. Most
> rows in the table are like this, so this matrix is only a very
>
Bastien:
I was not trying to suggest that there was no GNOME portability
documentation. Instead I was saying that it should not be
surprising that non-Linux distros (and many popular Linux distros)
are making very slow progress with GNOME 3 based on the quality
and scope of the existing documen
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:00 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and external
> factors involved in making policy decision about power. This makes the
> power plugin
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:00 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and external
> factors involved in making policy decision about power. This makes the
> power plugin
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 17:48 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:43:26AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Antoine Jacoutot
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think at one point the GNOME project will need to step up and
> > > explicitely states
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:14 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:05AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> > gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and external
> > factors i
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 17:48 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> Sure, but my initial concern is that once you have one foot in
> systemd, why not embrace it totally?
What does "embracing totally" mean?
If there are more features in systemd to simplify or better GNOME, we'll
certainly use them. But t
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 19:20 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 19/10/2012 15:41, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> > I don't think that is a very productive way to have a discussion. What
> > are you hoping to achieve ?
> The discussion went this way:
> 1: "g-s-d will drop non systemd support"
> 2: coul
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 13:33 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> The GNOME community provides little guidance about what systemd
> interfaces are actually needed for various GNOME features to work
> properly. Maybe nobody really knows yet, but non-Linux distros will
> likely make slow progress as long as
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 12:07 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:48 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > I would recommend that gnome-shell uses systemd to suspend, and I would
> > recommend gnome-shell, gnome-session and gdm also drop their ConsoleKit
> > session tracking code. At
On Sat, 20.10.12 09:21, Jasper St. Pierre (jstpie...@mecheye.net) wrote:
>
> (Somehow you manage to reply with "Florian Max"@gmail, "Florian
> Mullner"@gmail, and "Florian Muller"@gnome. I won't question it)
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Florian Müllner wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at
(Somehow you manage to reply with "Florian Max"@gmail, "Florian
Mullner"@gmail, and "Florian Muller"@gnome. I won't question it)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Florian Müllner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
> wrote:
>> This is what I feel. DBus is our system abstra
Some perspective about this issue from a Solaris perspective.
On non-Linux systems like Solaris there is little value in using
upstream GNOME code for some features. Power management is a
good example. On Solaris, power management uses Solaris-specific
interfaces and supports Solaris specific
On 19 October 2012 14:27, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> ..otherwise I will suggest we stop making GNOME available since Ubuntu
> doesn't have the requirements to run > 3.8...
I'm sure I was talking to several people that managed to get
systemd/logind working just fine on Ubuntu. Can't the GNOME remix
Le 19/10/2012 15:41, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
I don't think that is a very productive way to have a discussion. What
are you hoping to achieve ?
The discussion went this way:
1: "g-s-d will drop non systemd support"
2: could we define standard interface that are up to the distributor to
implem
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
wrote:
> This is what I feel. DBus is our system abstraction layer. I feel that
> making ConsoleKit support the logind interface wouldn't be that big of
> a patch and solve this issue, at least.
Unless I'm mistaken ConsoleKit only provides a subs
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>> The other thing we can do (and really should do) is share more code
>> relating to systemd/CK and in general system abstractions.
>>
>> It's really pretty silly how hard we make it
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:00 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and external
> factors involved in making policy decision about power. This makes the
> power plugin o
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> The other thing we can do (and really should do) is share more code
> relating to systemd/CK and in general system abstractions.
>
> It's really pretty silly how hard we make it to share code between
> gnome-settings-daemon and gnome-shell.
On vie, 2012-10-19 at 12:19 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
The other thing we can do (and really should do) is share more code
> relating to systemd/CK and in general system abstractions.
>
> It's really pretty silly how hard we make it to share code between
> gnome-settings-daemon and gnome-shell. I
The other thing we can do (and really should do) is share more code
relating to systemd/CK and in general system abstractions.
It's really pretty silly how hard we make it to share code between
gnome-settings-daemon and gnome-shell. I'd be happy to move
more stuff into to gnome-desktop personally
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:30 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
>> On vie, 2012-10-19 at 14:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Bastien Nocera
>> > > wr
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:48 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> I would recommend that gnome-shell uses systemd to suspend, and I would
> recommend gnome-shell, gnome-session and gdm also drop their ConsoleKit
> session tracking code. At the end of the day, the decisions are not mine
> to make, so if t
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:43:26AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
>
> >
> > I think at one point the GNOME project will need to step up and explicitely
> > states that GNOME is a Linux-only Desktop.
> > I am a BSD user; don't get me wrong
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:30 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
> On vie, 2012-10-19 at 14:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > > Note that I also intend on dropping session tracking sup
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 19/10/2012 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
>
>> If you want to provide compatible interfaces to systemd without using
>> systemd, then you'll need to engage with the systemd developers to make
>> sure that APIs are suitable for your imp
On vie, 2012-10-19 at 14:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > Note that I also intend on dropping session tracking support from
> > > ConsoleKit.
> > >
> >
> > I was actually looki
Le 19/10/2012 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
If you want to provide compatible interfaces to systemd without using
systemd, then you'll need to engage with the systemd developers to make
sure that APIs are suitable for your implementation.
No, I don't plan to do that work either so I will take f
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:05 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 19/10/2012 11:00, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > I intend on making systemd a hard requirement
> Hey Bastien,
>
> Was there any consideration to define those interface as "standard
> freedesktop interfaces" to let GNOME work on any sys
Le 19/10/2012 11:00, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
I intend on making systemd a hard requirement
Hey Bastien,
Was there any consideration to define those interface as "standard
freedesktop interfaces" to let GNOME work on any system implementing
those? Some distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, ...) don'
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 18:51 +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I intend on making systemd
Hello Antoine,
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:14 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:05AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> > gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and extern
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 18:51 +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
>> > gnome-settings-daemon.
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 18:51 +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> > gnome-settings-daemon.
>
> Does it mean GNOME without systemd does not support power
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> gnome-settings-daemon.
Does it mean GNOME without systemd does not support power management
anymore? If so, any chance an external power plugin, maintained
s
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
>
> I think at one point the GNOME project will need to step up and explicitely
> states that GNOME is a Linux-only Desktop.
> I am a BSD user; don't get me wrong, if GNOME goes Linux-only then so be it.
> But the current situation is har
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:05AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
> gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and external
> factors involved in making policy decision about power. This makes the
> power p
Hello,
I intend on making systemd a hard requirement for the power plugin in
gnome-settings-daemon. There is a lot of interactions and external
factors involved in making policy decision about power. This makes the
power plugin one of the more fragile parts of the system, with things
like DPMS, sc
45 matches
Mail list logo
