April 24, 2017 4:51 PM, "Lennart Poettering" <lenn...@poettering.net> 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... In that case, no changes are necessary to sd-bus since it already exposes all interfaces. I've filed a bug report against gdbus: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781524 Regards, David _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
