On 07/07/2010 09:02, David Paleino wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:09:41 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > >> On mar., 2010-07-06 at 23:27 +0200, David Paleino wrote: >>>> I believe so, but I'm not raising that to RC yet. This is because I >>> believe it >>>> could be pynotify's fault (source package notify-python). >>>> However, I need to make a small example showing the bug, before >>> claiming that. >>> >>> I'm attaching a small example. It works here. >>> >>> Also, I have upgraded libnotify1, python-notify and >>> notification-daemon to the >>> latest versions in sid, and I'm not able to reproduce your bug. :( >> >> It /might/ be related to #588272 / #588276. > > Yup, seems so. > >> I'm using xfce4-notifyd which doesn't support notification specs 1.1, and it >> seems that libnotify1 doesn't support 1.0 anymore. I guess you're using the >> GNOME notification daemon which I guess supports the 1.1 version. > > Yes, I am using GNOME-Shell. > > $ dbus-send --print-reply > --dest=org.freedesktop.Notifications /org/freedesktop/Notifications > org.freedesktop.Notifications.GetServerInformation > method return sender=:1.12 -> dest=:1.1154 reply_serial=2 > string "GNOME Shell" > string "GNOME" > string "0.1" > string "1.0" > $ > > It seems to be a 1.0 daemon...
While there is no 1.0 spec :/ > >> The git version of xfce4-notifyd does support 1.1 spec and wicd-client >> runs fine so yes, in any case, the bug is not in wicd. It's either in >> xfce4-notifyd, in python-notify or in libnotify. >> >> I'm still puzzled by the fact that it *fails* with a 1.0 daemon. > > If you're ok, can we merge this bug with #588276 ? :) Yeah, I guess so. It'd still be nice if wicd could start even without notification though (especially since it's not a required function). So maybe still keep this bug, but retitle it and ask upstream about the try/except stuff. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
