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