From: Tim R. <tim...@co...> - 2005-03-30 02:43:49
|
Luke Schierer wrote: > Novell currently applies a patch to gaim to remove certain > preferences from the UI, forcing defaults, resisting attempts to edit > the prefs.xml (If I understood the patch correctly). This would > remove some of the need for that patch, they could set up the > preferences in the gconf root config and then lock them. Beyond that, > it would also be useful in a coproprate environment where users do not > have root. there may be other real world cases I am not thinking of. None of these people have actually wanted gconf enough to approch us asking about it, have they? Or should Kahn's @novell address imply that that's why he's writing the patch? > Reguardless of the decision on keeping the ability to write a > prefs.xml, we should have an upgrade path, just as we did from .gaimrc > to .prefs.xml. I do not think that this need of an upgrade path > should block a move to gconf if we decide that the benifits outweight > the costs or that the costs can be worked around in some manner. You also need a downgrade path, or else what happens if someone switches from gconf build to a nongconf build? Where did all my prefs go? But I UPGRAED to Gaim 1.10.0, because the topic said so! It sounds rather difficult to me to make a gconf ignorant build able to import prefs from gconf back to prefs.xml Also, what good is all this locking down prefs stuff, if I can just GAIM_USE_PREFSXML=1 ./gaim ? From the autopackager perspective, I think "one more think that ought to be made to use dlopen". All that said, I'm not totally gun ho against this. I just can't come up with anythign good to say about gconf that hasn't already been said. --Tim |