On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 08:12 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:43 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > For GConf, we were human editable and readable through gconf-editor, and > > greppable/diffable through gconftool-2. > > > > Either you're fueling a flamefest, or you don't understand what's > > required for a modern configuration system. > > I'm not trying to fuel a flamefest, but it does seem apparent that you > do not understand the requirements of a modern network and shared > resource system. > > If you want to know what things are common problems with a linux desktop > infrastructure in a shared resource environment ask on the list. There > are a good number of folks here who have to maintain resources for > hundreds of users, not just single users on a desktop/laptop. I didn't say DConf, or the current GConf implementations were good, I said that one-small-file-per-config-option is absolutely unworkable. As for propagating new defaults, or mandatory options (like GConf is able to do), I don't see how a one-file-per-option would solve that problem. I understand the requirements for networked resources, which is why the solution mentioned above wouldn't work. inotify (and FAM before it) won't work (properly) on (most) networked filesystems, locking is a pain if you need to handle multiple processes accessing the same file from different processes, etc. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
