Hey Marcel, On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 15:32 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > Did you want to make HAL a hard dependency, or should it be optional as > > now? > > > > I'll finish that up now. > > do we need something? I thought they are D-Bus calls only. Yep, libhal. Reimplementing the query functions, etc. would be a PITA. See attached patch. > > > The other thing is that this doesn't really belong into bluetooth-applet > > > and should be moved directly into hcid. However this might give some > > > crazy dependency chain. > > > > I don't think such a policy should be in hcid, but rather in the desktop > > bits. (Currently, the bluetooth daemons are started a long time before > > HAL is, at least in Fedora, and Matthew Garrett's HAL bits need the > > bluetooth daemon running, so, yeah, crazy deps). > > In general you are right, but tell that to the Bluetooth specification. > The class of device is really a per adapter thing and not a per user > thing unless we can assign specific hardware only to one particular > user. I understand that. But hcid can be run on other types of Linux devices, which wouldn't have HAL available, or need more flexibility than what the bluez GNOME applets and properties might allow. As the properties and applet are integrated together, it makes sense to have them rely on each other. As for the Bluetooth specs saying there can only be one class per adapter, I don't see how that's different from the properties allowing different users to set a different visible name for the adapter. Similar problem to users having different power preferences with gnome-power-manager, or network settings with NetworkManager. This is something to revisit when ConsoleKit reaches maturity. I hope you like the attached patch. Cheers (and merry Christmas ;) -- Bastien Nocera