On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 16:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces > > > > > reported by > > > > > sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, > > > > > that gdbus > > > > > can be considered the "reference" implementation). > > > > > > > > Does the appended patch fix your issue? > > > > (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry) > > > > > > Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems > > > to do > > > the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces? > > > > This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces > > reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report > > them > > so far. > > > > Note that we really better report all interfaces an object > > supports. I > > don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should. > > Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete > information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our > messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to > me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus...
It's not clear that the GNOME side was implemented correctly yet. Would be nice to see the sample code. Dan _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel