[Portland] Current plan summarized

[Bastian, Waldo]

>On Tuesday 14 March 2006 22:43, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> On 3/14/06, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak at suse.cz> wrote:
>> > "The Interface Library may provide fallback provisions in case a
target
>> > system does not provide the IPC protocol and/or the required
desktop
>> > services. Application developers are NOT supposed to include a
desktop
>> > services implementation along with their application as fallback."
>> >
>> >  That's still an open question [*]. My current plan is to go with a
>> > fallback daemon.
>>
>> Do you want to require ISVs to ship a fallback daemon?
>
> If it shows to be the best way, yes. It's not like it'd be rocket
science.

I wasn't thinking about in terms of "rocket science" more in terms of
"can of worms". Either you make a fallback deamon that doesn't depend on
desktop specific libraries, in which case you can just as well include
it in the Interface Library itself. Or you make a fallback daemon that
_does_ depend on desktop specific libraries and then you end up in
distro version hell.

I don't think this is the direction to go.

Cheers,
Waldo