more thoughts on gconfd situation
seth vidal <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.os.redhat |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1018667679.1598.63.camel@milo> |
Hi, I know this must becoming tiresome but I had some more questions/thoughts on gconfd. I was looking at skipjack and I noticed gconf-sanity-check-1. I looked through the source and it appears to check if locking works, then check if the lock you currently has makes any sense. Sort of like what gmc does if you run it as root, it would be great if gconf-sanity-check did: 1. prompted the user to tell them something is amiss and gives them the option of killing the login now 2. MAYBE gave them the option of attempting to force-clear the lock if they think everything is a-ok. I know this is ugly but it would get around the crash and nfs won't release-the-lock problems in the short term. Then again 2.4.18 might have fixed some of the nfs locking problems - I should look into that in more details At the very least have the default gnome-session run gconf-sanity-check-1 to warn the users if something is borked. I looked through gnome-session in skipjack and I didn't see any reference to gconf-sanity-check. -sv -- GPG Public Key: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~skvidal/skvidal.gpg
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 232 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8t6Ke1Aj3x2mIbMcRAmK4AKCsABlzehOscJG8dlx34NrDWvL+UQCfXsPH Mo2UGZgt3zbnMY0WS6qDtRs= =huXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----