gconf question

[John Galloway]

On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:00 AM, David Zeuthen wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:54 -0700, John Galloway wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2006, at 5:08 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
>>>
>>> I added reading mount options from gconf to gnome-mount CVS HEAD
>>> not so
>>> long ago.
>> I presume that if it does not find a gconf deamon running its happy
>> to continue
>> on without such?  I don't want to see gconf become a requirement as
>> opposed to
>> an option.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the way gconf works is that when someone uses
> libgconf, a gconf daemon (per-user) will be activated to service the
> request. I also think the gconf daemon exits when no one is no longer
> using it.
True (I think) but there is system configuration needed (the location of
the gconf settings sources) which if not setup are going to at best  
return
emtpy strings for any call if none of that has been setup and at  
worst is
going to just explode if gconfd can't be started.  For systems
that are not going to be using gconf at all, this seems a long way  
around
to find this out.
> I also think all this is subject to change when ORBit is
> replaced by D-BUS (Nokia got patches IIRC). But I could be wrong.
There is a gconf-dbus branch that split off 18 months or so ago  
(imendio)
but that is not going to be merged back in.  Also while there has been
some talk about replacing Orbit with Dbus, I don't think any actual work
is being done along these lines.

I'd like to see the use, or not, of gconf to be a configure setting.   
I don't
care which way the default goes, but I'd like to not have to link  
against
the gconf libs or ever try to start the daemon if I know no such  
thing exists (i.e.
on our system gconfd does not exist).
  -jrg
>
>     David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hal mailing list
> hal at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal
>