next level of freedesktop.org
hp at redhat.com
Thu Jul 17 18:02:12 EEST 2003
Nice can of worms there, Jody. ;-)
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 10:32:09AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> This raises an interesting issue. There are a few libs like
> libxml/libxslt that are used fairly universally. Does it make sense
> to explicitly move them into the nascent project ? IMHO, yes. The
> more explicitly common code the better.
> Is there utility in versioned package of common libraries ?
> - zlib / libbz2
> - libpng/jpeg/....
> or are these now static enough not to require it ?
> The more politically charged question then becomes, how about glib ?
I think we might want to distinguish:
- implementation details that multiple people are using
- things that you really have to use to "fit in" to the platform
For example, for fontconfig you really have to use a specific
implementation when porting to X/Linux/UNIX or we might say your app
However, if you're parsing a PNG, any PNG parser that complies with
the spec is fine.
Once we make this distinction, maybe we *still* want to include
libpng. But it's something we'd have to discuss.
I envision maybe having a release team that would determine what's
included, and they would operate by consensus (i.e. anyone can veto,
more or less).
More information about the xdg