greeneg at tolharadys.net
Fri Apr 29 07:34:47 BST 2011
On 27 Apr 2011, at 3:16 PM, John Layt wrote:
> There's been a short discussion on the GeoClue mailing list related to
> resolving the issues we have around their dependencies on gconf and gsettings
> and the latest response has been:
>> The GConf dependency is already gone. And I wouldn't take a patch to
>> remove the GSettings dependency. There's Qt bindings to access
>> GSettings, and GSettings lives in GIO, which is also where the dbus-glib
>> replacement (GDBus) lives. I don't think that trying to replace a
>> library that's already in the dependencies due to the way packages are
>> built is buying us anything but too moving parts.
> Now, I don't really know about GSettings, but I'm guessing this isn't an
> acceptable things for us?
Sorry but this has been bugging me.....
Honestly, the inclusion of GSettings is IMO another push of "GNOME as a 'standard'" that I for one am not comfortable. Instead of coming forward with Qt bindings (which means heavy overkill for us since it'd also have to be wrapped for KConfig), why didn't they (the G* crowd) step forward and ask KDE what we'd want in a configuration backend and then come up with a real standard instead of the "we push it to Glib so now it IS a standard".
As for my vote on this, John, no I don't think this is acceptable :(
Gary L. Greene, Jr.
Developer and Project Lead for the AltimatOS open source project
Volunteer Developer for the KDE open source project
See http://www.altimatos.com/ and http://www.kde.org/ for more information
Please avoid sending me MS Office attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4188 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the kde-core-devel