desktop discussion

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Fri Apr 23 09:38:11 UTC 2004


Hey,

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 20:47, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:31, seth vidal wrote:
>  
> > >  7. The gconf multiple login question, which everyone is already 
> > >     familiar with sadly... Mark was having a look.
> > 
> > What's been mark's take on this? Last thing I heard some discussion of
> > application configuration storage daemon - possibly not gconfd based -
> > but that sounded like deep in the future.
> 
> Our idea was to merge all of /apps/metacity into one file, all of
> /apps/panel into one file, etc. That makes gconf equivalent to plain
> text files in terms of semantics. Mark already implemented it mostly.
> 
> But we were getting stuck on the fact that then you can't share homedirs
> with old installations. Also, some apps have pretty deep trees under the
> level 1 directory, so the single file would be kinda huge.
> 
> We could make it configurable, that's probably the right answer.

	Yeah, so I think there are two problems:

  1) Some people (e.g. people who are switching back and forth between 
     say RHEL4 and RHEL3 daily) are going to be screwed by this feature 
     because GConf 2.4 and earlier don't understand the merged file 
     format. So, I think for FC3 we'll switch it on by default but allow
     it be switched off with a backend flag. So by default 
     /etc/gconf/2/path would contain:

	xml:readwrite:$(HOME)/.gconf

     and if you needed to switch back and forth between version you 
     could change it to:

	xml:readwrite,nomerge:$(HOME)/.gconf

     The nomerge flag should probably explode all existing 
     %gconf-tree.xml files into a directory based hierarchy again, too.

  2) The optimal set of trees to merge into a file isn't that easy to 
     figure out - we may want to just go with merging everything two 
     levels down and if we figure out later that it should be 
     configurable we can implement it then.


	Anyway, more details (and a better explanation of the problems) in the
upstream bug report:

	http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138498

Cheers,
Mark.





More information about the Fedora-desktop-list mailing list