'no_polkit' variant for Gconf (was Re: Inkscape as non-root? (-> gnome-vs -> gconf -> policykit -> fail))
suv-sf at users.sourceforge.net
Fri Jul 31 05:37:01 PDT 2009
On 30/7/09 18:02, David Evans wrote:
>> What are the risks of 'crippling' GConf in this way when I have no needs
>> for the gnome desktop or whatever it is the essential part of? Any
>> comments on the attached portfile patch would be highly appreciated -
>> I'm new to MacPorts and it's my first attempt to build a software the
>> size of Inkscape myself.
> To answer this question specifically, GConf is used extensively by GNOME
> applications (and many other non-GNOME
> GTK+ applications as well) to store persistent preferences and
> configuration information both default and user selected.
> In the GNOME case many of these preferences may be shared between
Thank you for your insightful introduction to GConf, some of GNOMEs
basic principles and the necessity to have dbus enabled and running.
> Inkscape does not use GConf (yet) but uses its own preferences scheme
> (dot files in the users directory).
To clarify my initial intentions: I used MacPorts to install all needed
libraries and helper applications for Inkscape, but then proceeded to
build the application itself using the instructions on the Inkscape Wiki
page <http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/CompilingMacOsX> as
guidelines (i.e. I didn't not use the MacPorts Portfile for Inkscape).
My goal was to create the 'Inkscape.app' bundle with the most recent
updates from SVN.
> Dbus is also used directly by many applications. For instance it is
> used by GIMP to make sure that only one instance
> of GIMP is active at a time.
I currently have GIMP 2.6.6 from gimponosx.sf.net installed, and had a
look at how it implements its dbus-dependencies by including its own
dbus-daemon/launcher into the application bundle.
Dbus will need to be part of the Inkscape port (and any Inkscape
application bundle) as soon as the new GSoC 2009 project implementing a
scripting API via dbus makes it into the trunk. Until then Inkscape
seems to run fine without it, even with a broken GConf install (except
Open ClipArt Library access).
> So the short answer is, if you do this, you will likely break many other
> ports as well. You could do this is inkscape
> is the only thing you care about but I don't recommend it.
I already noticed the limitations when installing other Inkscape helper
applications and then some more ;-). The 'old' tools like ghostscript,
ImageMagick, xv run fine but using ggv instead of gv already reveals the
intertwined nature of current GNOME applications. Even Dia depends on
GConf/dbus to open its help pages in the browser.
> So the real issue here is not with Inkscape but with the problem of
> installing ports that need sudo (there are others) to install properly
> when you are running MacPorts strictly at the user level. I don't have
> a solution for this -- perhaps someone else
> can address this.
In my limited experience the increasingly(?) complex nature of GNOME
seems to undermine the ability of MacPorts to run as non-admin at user
level. How many ports of applications like Inkscape, Dia or Gimp can
still be installed without some of the deeply nested dependencies
requiring sudo-access in the destroot/install/activation phase?
I will try to figure out how launch and controll a dbus-session at user
level next, before I have to give up and acknowledge that the use of
sudo/admin rights is definitely not avoidable.
More information about the macports-users