Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-18)
alex at declera.com
Mon Jun 18 09:50:03 UTC 2012
On 18.06.2012 12:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>>> You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
>>>>> saying why.
>>>> Because designing an asynchronous messaging bus that can be restarted
>>>> without losing any messages is a difficult problem.
>>> If only Red Hat was involved in writing one ...
>>> Oh wait, what's this? https://qpid.apache.org/
>> Unless, you can change d-bus to do this while retaining the features, it
>> isn't very relevant to the discussion.
> What we shouldn't do is break things further by making almost all
> updates require a reboot.
> I believe there is or was an effort to replace dbus by something
> AMQP-based. However I can't find that right now.
Probably it is doable on top of ZeroMQ too (+ few bits sqlite around the
restarts) and IMO zmq is relatively closer to dbus compared to AMQP.
But it is possible to rework dbus in any of these ways (inject
persistence, adopting different messaging core) in the F18 timeframe?
May be we should look at the proposed feature as unfortunate temporary
workaround for the problem introduced by accident in the past, which
should be properly addressed for F19.
As I understand the proposal, the necessary workaround only affects the
desktop instances and specifically Gnome ones - I am under the
impression that my servers will continue to be updated by the normal way.
More information about the devel