On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 20:46 +0900, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > > > >> and I still have all the rights to do so. > > > >> > > > >> As long as we are still based on GLib, this will stay as it is. I am > > > >> not > > > >> jumping through any hoops, because David wouldn't respect prior art. > > > > > > > > How exactly would would have called a D-Bus implementation in GLib? > > > > > > Well you could have called godbus as that is more a gobject binding > > > than a pure glib/GMainLoop one. > > > > GLib lives in a single tarball. It's only Marcel's hate for GObject and > > the apparent need to be able to replace glib that spawned this thin > > wrapper on top of libdbus you're using now. > > plain fact is that our gdbus code was there first. Nice comeback. > If you wanna turn this into a GObject discussion now, I don't. I'm merely pointing out that a file layout change might be a good time to fix potential symbol clashes. > then please find a > mailing list that cares. It is clearly not this one. I think you've made this abundantly clear. I don't think this attitude is helping BlueZ thrive, when it's far less friction to fix problems higher up in the stack. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
