Status of gconf -> dconf

[Callum Lerwick]

 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...

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090224/e6ee73b7/attachment.sig>