On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann ([email protected]) wrote: > >>> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by > >>> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus > >>> can be considered the "reference" implementation). > >> > >>Does the appended patch fix your issue? > >>(line-breaks might be screwed, sorry) > > > > Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do > > the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces? > > This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces > reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them > so far. > > Note that we really better report all interfaces an object supports. I > don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.
Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
