After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 346890 - Please update to latest Pessulus tree
Please update to latest Pessulus tree
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: sabayon
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
SVN trunk
Other Linux
: Urgent normal
: ---
Assigned To: Federico Mena Quintero
Maintainers of sabayon
Depends on:
Blocks: 582510
 
 
Reported: 2006-07-07 13:59 UTC by Rob Bradford
Modified: 2009-12-23 02:07 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Integrate with system pessulus (1.17 KB, patch)
2006-12-22 06:44 UTC, Sayamindu Dasgupta
none Details | Review

Description Rob Bradford 2006-07-07 13:59:24 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.
Comment 1 Sayamindu Dasgupta 2006-12-22 06:44:18 UTC
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
Comment 2 Rob Bradford 2007-01-07 18:07:41 UTC
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.
Comment 3 Federico Mena Quintero 2007-01-12 02:20:54 UTC
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.
Comment 4 Federico Mena Quintero 2007-08-14 01:20:36 UTC
The plan to merge Pessulus into Sabayon is explained here:
http://live.gnome.org/Sabayon
Comment 5 Scott Balneaves 2009-12-17 06:35:12 UTC
Latest Pessulus merged in.  Closing.
Comment 6 André Klapper 2009-12-20 16:13:38 UTC
(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!
Comment 7 André Klapper 2009-12-20 16:27:15 UTC
...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?
Comment 8 Scott Balneaves 2009-12-21 16:52:21 UTC
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.
Comment 9 André Klapper 2009-12-21 17:05:07 UTC
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. :)
Comment 10 Scott Balneaves 2009-12-22 04:44:44 UTC
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.
Comment 11 Scott Balneaves 2009-12-23 02:07:59 UTC
Ok, this has now been reworked.  We now hard depend on Pessulus.  There's a check in the configure.ac file.

Closing.