Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:54:30 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: John Merryweather Cooper <johnmary@adelphia.net> Cc: FreeBSD GNOME Users <gnome@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New gconf key policy Message-ID: <1088049270.91312.19.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <20040624030021.GA56728@borgdemon.losaca.adelphia.net> References: <1088040025.91312.14.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20040624030021.GA56728@borgdemon.losaca.adelphia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-paVn22Qn0Tqawj0cbkEB Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 23:00, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:20:25PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > Please take a look at the latest update to archivers/fileroller, and le= t > > me know what you think. This is the new gconf policy I think we need t= o > > adopt if we're to survive the upcoming gconf changes in GNOME 2.8 (it's > > similar to the way we handle OMF files now). This will also make gconf > > handling much more robust with respect to plists. > >=20 > > The one downside I see with this is that we will miss Makefile bugs tha= t > > prevent proper schema installation. One way around that is to add a > > pkg-install script to each port that installs gconf schemas, and do > > gconf registration there. This may be more work than it's worth, > > though. > >=20 > > What are people's thoughts on this? Thanks. > >=20 > > Joe > >=20 > > --=20 > > PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc >=20 > Well, there seems to be an increasing amount of post-install tasks in > GNOME ports, so I think the idiom of using a pkg-install script for > each port is a good one. So far, there are only two (counting gconf) post-[de]install handlers that are being added the plists. I've written an omf.pl script (in my CVS repo) to handle automatically adding OMF handlers. I plan on doing the same for gconf. Given that, a pkg-install script might add more repo bloat that we need at this time. > Turning to a design issue, do you see the > changes to gconf handling as making debugging of gconf-related > issues easier or harder. I'm having a devil of a time wrestling an > update of comms/gfax into working order because of gconf issues. I don't think it will make gconf issues any harder to troubleshoot.=20 Like I said, it will "mask" the problem we see occasionally when a developer messes up one of the Makefiles, and schemas are not properly installed. What gconf problems are you having? Joe >=20 > jmc >=20 --=20 PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc --=-paVn22Qn0Tqawj0cbkEB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBA2lB2b2iPiv4Uz4cRAp15AJ4wid19iZd/iTOn4hI7QVQA4eTYmACcC8Zg 39GQ+nlH7Zn/roGkvYfGduY= =46NH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-paVn22Qn0Tqawj0cbkEB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1088049270.91312.19.camel>