GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 346890
Please update to latest Pessulus tree
Last modified: 2009-12-23 02:07:59 UTC
Me and Vincent been doing some work on pessulus which should probably now be included in sabayon. The most cool thing is the switch over from tabs to a treeview on the left. I'll be doing more work on Pessulus over the coming weeks. Including some work on appearance lockdown. I've not included a patch since 'make update' just worked.
Created attachment 78774 [details] [review] Integrate with system pessulus This patch makes Sabayon use the system installation of Pessulus. Probably I should also modify admin-tools/Makefile.am and configure.ac to make sure that 1. the lockdown directory does not get installed 2. configure looks for an pessulus installation before going ahead
Hhhm. Either way Sabayon should use the new Pessulus (either by including it in the source (always a bad idea i've thought) or with the version installed on the system. Obvsiouly this will create tight dependencies between the two but any sane package management system can deal with that.
Why are Sabayon and Pessulus separate? I think Pessulus (the lockdown part) should live directly under Sabayon (as it is in sabayon/admin-tool/lockdown right now). I see no reason to keep them separate. Putting them "formally" together should also make it easier to integrate the GUIs in a deeper way.
The plan to merge Pessulus into Sabayon is explained here: http://live.gnome.org/Sabayon
Latest Pessulus merged in. Closing.
(In reply to comment #3) > Why are Sabayon and Pessulus separate? > I think Pessulus (the lockdown part) should live directly under Sabayon (In reply to comment #5) > Latest Pessulus merged in. Closing. Scott, Federico: I'm confused. So what does this exactly mean? Is the separate module "Pessulus" dead from now on and all work goes into Sabayon, or not? If Pessulus as a separate module is dead now, please announce this to release-team@ (to get it removed from http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentynine/Admin ), desktop-devel-list@ (to get it removed from the jhbuild 2.30 moduleset in http://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/tree/modulesets/gnome-suites-2.30.modules and hence also the listing at http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/reports/299.html ) and gnome-i18n@ (so translation teams don't waste time for translating the separate "pessulus" module). Also, this sounds like something definitely worth to add to the Developers section of http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap . Thanks a lot!
...also, open bug reports for Pessulus should probably be moved into Sabayon and the "Pessulus" module in Bugzilla be closed for bug entry, and the module in git should become read-only?
I'm going to re-open this. Here's my thoughts on the subject. I think it makes sense to have Pessulus remain as a separate product, simply because some people may want lockdown, but NOT want the more heavyweight profile management that Sabayon provides. Currently, we "include" Pessulus in Sabayon by making a git checkout of Pessulus, and copying bits into Sabayon. Here's what I think should happen: If the functionality of Pessulus gets turned into a library, then the main program "pessulus" just basically instantiates a pessulus object, and boom, it works. For us, clicking on the lockdown menu item does exactly the same thing: just instantiates a pessulus object. That way, if pessulus is installed on the system, we present the lockdown item on the menu, if it isn't we dont. PLUS, we don't need to copy pessulus source into ours, we just try: import pessulus has_pessulus = True except ImportError: has_pessulus = False and then present the menu item depending on the value of has_pessulus. I'll coordinate this with Vincent. I'll post something to sabayon-list.
So GNOME currently ships Sabayon which includes an internal copy of Pessulus, plus GNOME ships Pessulus itself? Sounds not optimal to me. :-) Yeah, talking to Vincent welcome, also from a GNOME release management perspective. :)
http://git.gnome.org/browse/sabayon/commit/?id=baa99cfdf2037e74608cd5feb20698f117bb9209 I think this fixes the problem, see my post in sabayon-list. I need to ruminate on whether we should hard depend with a check/fail in configure.ac, or whether a soft depend a la try: import Pessulus... is better. I've changed my earlier position, and am now leaning towards a hard dep. I'll leave this open another day or so whyle I chew my cud on this one.
Ok, this has now been reworked. We now hard depend on Pessulus. There's a check in the configure.ac file. Closing.