Status of gconf -> dconf
dcbw at redhat.com
Tue Feb 24 18:05:16 UTC 2009
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 11:34 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 15:35 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > I didn't say DConf, or the current GConf implementations were good, I
> > said that one-small-file-per-config-option is absolutely unworkable.
> What's this /proc/sys/ thing...
Um, that's a filesystem yes, but you cannot compare it to on-disk
filesystems. /proc and /sys are memory-backed and thus don't suffer
from the limitations that Bastien refers to.
> Yes, current filesystems are not optimized for lots of small files. But
> absolutely unworkable? That's absurd.
> > 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.
> You solve that problem the way it's been done for decades. Config files
> in /etc/ that override anything the user sets. The on-disk format isn't
> even relevant to this particular problem.
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
More information about the devel