| 1 |
Le 19/03/2009 15:23, Robert Piasek a écrit : |
| 2 |
>> Feel the trend? gnome-base/gnome-panel will follow soon. Lets make this |
| 3 |
>> global. Unless we decide that PolicyKit is the future and make it |
| 4 |
>> compulsory). |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> If no one complains, I will make the changes in a couple days. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That seems reasonable. ACK from me. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I think it would be also good idea to add policykit support and finally unmask |
| 11 |
> it. It seems some packages have hardcoded --without-policy-kit / --without- |
| 12 |
> policykit and some others add policykit to package.use.mask (btw can it be |
| 13 |
> unmasked by user from portage level??). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I've been playing with policykit for a while now and never had any real |
| 16 |
> problems with it. I would gladly help to support it by default. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It's unfortunately not that simple. Some applications require very |
| 19 |
little from PK (the clock applet from gnome-panel is one of those iirc). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But some others (I'm looking at you, gnome-power-manager) just fail |
| 22 |
miserably if a specific policy file isn't installed. So for each package |
| 23 |
that uses PK, we need to come up with a default policy file that fits |
| 24 |
with Gentoo tradition. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Bottom line, none of us took the time to do this because we just didn't |
| 27 |
have the time to take care of this. We could definitely use some help to |
| 28 |
figure out what to ship as "reasonable" defaults to our users. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rémi |
Archives