Bug 334681
Summary: | dbus should own %{_datadir}/dbus-1/interfaces/ | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Kevin Kofler <kevin> |
Component: | dbus | Assignee: | David Zeuthen <davidz> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mclasen, rdieter |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-10-16 16:11:16 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Kevin Kofler
2007-10-16 15:59:55 UTC
This sounds like a KDE-ism; /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces is, AFAIK, not mentioned anywhere in any D-Bus specification or implementation notes. Also, I recall discussion about this on the mailing list and that there was no conclusion about it. (btw, I'm not saying this is not a useful feature but things like this needs to happen upstream) But all that's needed here is a directory, not any change to the upstream source code, and I think dbus is really the best place to own this (and Rex and Than both agree). I'm putting the directory into soprano now, which happens to be the lowest package in the dependency chain using it, but to me this looks like a crude hack and not a solution. We could put it into kde-filesystem, but that would mean soprano, which is not strictly a KDE package (but a kdesupport one) would have to depend on kde-filesystem for directory ownership, which is also ugly. (In reply to comment #3) > But all that's needed here is a directory, not any change to the upstream > source code, and I think dbus is really the best place to own this (and Rex and > Than both agree). I'm putting the directory into soprano now, which happens to > be the lowest package in the dependency chain using it, but to me this looks > like a crude hack and not a solution. We could put it into kde-filesystem, but > that would mean soprano, which is not strictly a KDE package (but a kdesupport > one) would have to depend on kde-filesystem for directory ownership, which is > also ugly. KDE is doing something that was discussed on the upstream mailing list and not agreed to by upstream. IMNSHO it's basicly wrong what KDE is doing and it's also a bit rude. (FWIW, there's a bunch of issues with KDE doing this that will result in interoperability issues and headaches going forward etc. See the upstream ml archive for discussion. At the very least KDE should be using it's own directory and not pretend what it's doing is a D-Bus thing.) By having the dbus owning that directory it would be condoning this behavior. That's just not going to happen. Sorry. Please take the problem upstream. fair enough, will do. FWIW, OpenSUSE is now installing the directory in their dbus-1 package: http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-commit/2007-10/msg00019.html FWIW, I've taken this to the D-Bus list http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2007-October/008773.html Hopefully it will revive the discussion on how to properly handle this in a DE independent way. Thanks. You should make it clear that by "not agreed to", you mean "got no answer" (see http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2007-March/007434.html , the only reply was about another part of Thiago's mail), not "was explicitly disapproved", so I can understand the KDE people to have taken that as approval (also because in KDE world, no objections usually imply approval). (In reply to comment #8) > You should make it clear that by "not agreed to", you mean "got no answer" (see > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2007-March/007434.html , the only > reply was about another part of Thiago's mail), not "was explicitly > disapproved", so I can understand the KDE people to have taken that as approval Please take a minute to try and understand the issues before you start turning this into politics. If you read the very link above you will see that a KDE4 package is providing the file org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver.xml in the disputed directory. Clearly, if gnome-screensaver just decided to implement standards, like this, without caring about getting things upstream you would have a file conflict because that service also implements that interface. > (also because in KDE world, no objections usually imply approval). FWIW, I really hope you are not speaking for KDE with such a statement. Again, don't bother posting to this bug anymore; it's closed. Participate upstream instead. And feel free to reopen the bug once the issue is settled upstream. Thanks. Just noticed dbus does own this now, for better or worse, * Wed Jul 23 2008 Matthias Clasen <mclasen> - 1.2.1-7 - Own /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces I'll cleanup the multiple ownership now (in the kde-stack anyway). |