[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: blueman



Christopher Schramm wrote:
> Jelle de Jong wrote:
>> This program looks nice, but I would like to see a very detailed
>> explanation how it difference and what the relation is with:
>>
>> gpe-bluetooth
>> bluetooth-applet (gnome-bluez)
> 
> As mentioned (applies to bluez-gnome as well) - blueman brings audio,
> input and dial-up support and some advanced features like access point
> setup. Since supporting the basic PAN and file transfer features too,
> blueman completely replaces bluez-gnome. The author tries very hard to
> ensure compatibility.
> 

Would it not be better to improver bluez-gnome? or work with the
bluez-gnome developers and choice one project to officially support. I
think all the missing features that bluez-gnome does not bring will be on
the developers todo list for bluez-gnome. I am afraid for segmentation
and supplicated efforts. I have not seen any topic about blueman on the
official bluetooth-devel mailinglist. This said, I still thinks blueman
is a potentially great tool, but will my grandmother be able to use it to
connect there mouse and bluetooth speakers!

>> What for is policykit-gnome dependency exactly used?
> 
> For accessing the system settings. I hope future versions will introduce
> another solution for that. As I said, the author promised to distance
> from gnome and replace/remove some gnome dependencies, but that process
> will take some time.
> 
>> Does the program has a command line only interface, i am missing command
>> line tools to pair successfully with all bluetooth devices.
> 
> No. It's GTK only. I think bluez's own means include sufficient command
> line tools (like hcitool). Don't they?

Nope there are no official command line tools for pairing, there is the
simple-agent.py script in the testing directory of the git source, but it
is not supported and does fails for most devices. good command line
paring tools are on my wish list.

> 
> 
> Christopher Schramm
> 
> 


Reply to: