[Portland] xdg-utils first run report

[Jeremy White]

> Do you think it would be a nice addition to have a collection of code snippets 
> which show xdg-utils usage in different programming languages?

Yes; I think this is rather nice; I don't see any harm in having
other language bindings for the utilities.

I started on an ambitous project to create a 'pretend' ISV, and
show how xdg-utils could be used by that ISV (with source and all).
But I got swamped and never came back to it.

But just so my thread doesn't die, that isn't a real answer
to my crying need:  making sure that Linux software
packagers find and use xdg-utils.  Along those lines,
I have a long litany of things that I want:

  The 'MSDN for Linux' to exist and point to xdg-utils.
  All obvious Google searches to point to xdg-utils.
  All .rpms and .debs should be made with xdg-utils
    (I can hear the screaming now).
    Seriously.  I'd bet money that for a lot of small packages,
    the reason you need 1 maintainer for the SuSE packager
    and 1 maintainer for Red Hat, and 1 for Mandriva
    are entirely due to things that xdg-utils could smooth over.
    Be nice to save some duplicated effort (and get a greater
    critical mass for xdg-utils, too).
  A pony  <grin>

Cheers,

Jeremy

p.s.  The package of 'xdg-utils-1.0.1-scripts' was particularly
nice, that dropped in very cleanly.  Bravo to that packager.