reverted commits

Havoc Pennington hp at
Thu Jun 21 16:30:57 PDT 2007


Ralf Habacker wrote:
> where ?
> This issue was on the open patch list and was known and discussed 
> several times in the dbus list.
> see
> My mistake was not to use DBUS_WIN_FIXME, sorry for that.

I probably was thinking of

In any case, the point stands and would have come up if the patch were 

> You have taken this patch and modified it in a manner that all windows 
> bindings are broken 

So fix them, but correctly. The correct fix is not in any way hard.

Or if you think your fix is correct or that the correct fix is absurdly 
hard, then discuss that on the list, but don't just commit without me 
saying OK.

So far on at least two occasions you have said one of my requests was an 
impossible, unreasonable demand and it ended up taking me a few hours to 
do it myself when I got around to it, so I am very skeptical of these 

> Then we have reverted all our work relating to DBusSocket but the 
> windows builds are still broken because of the changed 
> _dbus_watch_get_fd(). Now we are forced to update all windows bindings 
> which will delay KDE on windows development for several weeks.

By this do you mean it will take several weeks to change the Qt bindings 
to use the new API on Windows? Because I'm pretty sure the change will 
be from:



  #ifdef UNIX

Or something along those lines. If this is going to take you a few 
weeks, then nothing I do is going to help you.

> The only 
> thing you tell is that the win32 api isn't declared stable
> and you 
> request a patch from us, while you have changed.

I've been very clear from the start that a hacked-up Windows port will 
not go in the mainline codebase.

I've just done yet another large chunk of refactoring that should help 
you get a correct, maintainable port in the mainline.

You are, as always, welcome to continue maintaining patches on your own.

The only time my opinion matters is when you want to commit to a 
codebase that I have to deal with long-term. In that case, I am not 
going to allow in broken stuff that can easily be done better.

> Unfortunally we probably have to tell that we cannot show any KDE 
> application on windows because the core component of KDE, dbus is broken 
> on windows because the maintainer declares the dbus windows api not stable.

The official dbus does not even _have_ a Windows port yet; it has some 
partial patches. So no, it does not have a stable ABI, since it has no 
ABI at all.

You are very welcome to keep a stable ABI in any unofficial patches or 
Windows version of dbus you want to release.

But for the mainline dbus, the Windows port will be done *when* someone 
does the work *fully and correctly*, and *not* before.


More information about the dbus mailing list