On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 13:04 +0200, Sylvain Baubeau wrote: > 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. Ok, thanks for the clarification. > 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. (A sidenote: paprefs is (at least I hope so) the only application that uses this stuff, so we don't need to worry about others.) It would be nice to have thoughts from actual package maintaners about this. Running module-gconf and module-gsettings side by side is harmless as long as module-gsettings doesn't do anything (which is the case as long as paprefs keeps using gconf), but doubt that any distribution actually wants to do that until they have decided how they are going to do the final migration. I think it's safe to say that at this point no distribution has the plan prepared. That said, I'd be ready to accept this patch (after more detailed review of the code, which I haven't done yet) just on the grounds that it's a good starting point for finishing the work later. However, it can also be argued that we shouldn't merge unfinished stuff that isn't usable at the moment. Arun, what do you think? --Â Tanu
