On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:30:05 -0500 Chris Lumens <clumens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Calculations based on RHEL 5 were around 2MB. > > I don't expect to be much different. > > > > We can get rid of GConf2 stuff and the XML settings if we patch Dogtail to > > not check gconf key for accessibility. This is a simple patch that will > > cause one of the Dogtail functions to return always true. > > That was discussed long time ago (can't find the link) but there was no > > decision. > > Yeah it'd probably be nice to get rid of the gconf stuff if possible. > Perhaps we can go ahead and include these patches, and you can work on > getting the simple patch included upstream. > > What does everyone else think? I'm confused. Is this patching dogtail to make a special version to include in stage2 or just patching dogtail to not require gconf stuff? I am in favor of adding dogtail support, but I don't think we should make a special version included for anaconda. -- David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat / Honolulu, HI
Attachment:
pgpOYezTaIp8W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
