| 1 |
On Friday 15 May 2009 22:51:41 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 15 May 2009 22:38:30 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> pk wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> DeviceKit isn't even in portage yet and not many packages support it. |
| 7 |
> >>>> I don't even know if the devs will change and improve the configs |
| 8 |
> >>>> much, if at all. The problem with hal is that it's code base is a |
| 9 |
> >>>> mess, and it's design is a mish- mash of stuff throwwn together. At |
| 10 |
> >>>> least, that's what the lead hal dev says |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DeviceKit#Dependencies |
| 13 |
> >>> |
| 14 |
> >>> I haven't looked into this in any depth but it seems like Devicekit |
| 15 |
> >>> will not be an improvement (looks like it brings in the "kitchen sink" |
| 16 |
> >>> in dependencies - I'm also "allergic" to gnome)... |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> I don't see how it depends on Gnome. In any case, it's not obvious to |
| 19 |
> >> me from either the link you posted nor from DeviceKit's homepage. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > The only useful app using DeviceKit at this point depends on gnome. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > So to get DeviceKit to do anything at all, you need gnome. This is due to |
| 24 |
> > current circumstance, not design. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Then I suppose everyone else will switch to DeviceKit at some point? If |
| 27 |
> it's better than HAL then why criticize DeviceKit at all? Isn't this |
| 28 |
> what we want, getting away from HAL? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm not sure who's criticizing DeviceKit, but it isn't me :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Fedora seems serious about DeviceKit, and have learned from the mistakes they |
| 33 |
made with hal. I've heard rumours that F11 will ship with DeviceKit, but at |
| 34 |
this early stage very few apps use it of course. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives