An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Jamie McCracken]

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:18 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> 
> 
>>I doubt DConf would be adopted prior to KDE4 (or Gnome 3) due to the 
>>effort required in swapping over to a new system so I therefore cant see 
>>any technical reason to exclude glib from the daemon - feel free to give 
>>one if anyone has a genuine problem with it.
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that we will need to wait for at least one dead
> body :-),

Well buddy hand me the gun :)

  I know of none. But then again, I'm not a core KDE developer.
> 
> However. Don't forget that perhaps many good KDE/Qt developers wont be
> interested in joining the implementing-it-fun if it's design is GObject
> oriented. 

Only the daemon will be but if their client side is going to be QT based 
then hopefully we will get at least one volunteer for that.

Is it worth excluding them? I'm not sure. And it seems to be a
> maintenance hell for the KDE developers, to depend on a library which
> they aren't maintaining themselves (Arts being an example).

The maintainer of the project will be responsible for maintaining things 
rather than Gnome/KDE - I presume thats the way it works for freedesktop 
stuff?

jamie.