Hello, First of all, I do not work for Fedora. I happen to use it, that's about it. Please don't blame Fedora for my less-than-perfect patch. I did the paprefs patch to make the upgrade process easier but it seems it makes it harder so I suggest we forget about the paprefs migration to gsettings and stick to gconf. In this case, I don't really see a problem with the upgrade : By default, module-gsettings is disabled and module-gconf stays enabled and nothing will change if the distribution maintainer does nothing. If a distribution wants to move to gsettings, it could do so during a major upgrade of the distro (that would probably update Gnome, the kernel and would require a session restart). They could decide to enable both modules - so that old programs keep working and new ones could use the new module - or switch completely to gsettings, after they make sure all programs packaged by the distribution have a migration script. What do you think ? Sylvain 2016-09-11 8:50 GMT+02:00 Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>: > On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 10:24 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 10:26 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 21:58 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 02:06 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 09:06 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So unless MATE and co. are actually using it, I don't think it's > a bad > > > > > > idea to drop it (the paprefs dep can be upgraded to latest PA > with > > > > > > gsettings-only support). > > > > > > > > > > If the data migration is not entirely smooth for users, I want to > let > > > > > distributions choose when to drop gconf support. > > > > > > > > Sure, making sure there's a smooth transition is important, but IMO > it's > > > > orthogonal to supporting GConf. It's not great to have GSettings as > an > > > > option and then push the decision of whether config should break or > not > > > > out to distribution. > > > > > > Do you mean that it's worse to provide a gsettings option that has > > > glitchy data migration than to provide no gsettings option at all? I > > > think that depends on how high distributions set their bar. If I was a > > > distribution maintainer, I would stay with gconf until a smooth > > > migration is available. If all distribution maintainers are like me, > > > then I agree, we should block gsettings support until this is fully > > > sorted out, but if I've understood correctly, Sylvain is working on > > > Fedora, and his patches are less-than-perfect in this regard, which > > > suggests to me that Fedora perhaps doesn't care that much about the > > > migration problems. > > > > We shouldn't block it, but I do think we should recommend that people > > hold off switching until we have a clean migration path. > > Certainly. This needs to be explained in the release notes, and > gsettings should be disabled by default (like it is in this patch). > > -- > Tanu > _______________________________________________ > pulseaudio-discuss mailing list > pulseaudio-discuss at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20160921/a5a2ce64/attachment-0001.html>
