An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system
apenwarr at nit.ca
Tue Apr 12 00:55:31 EEST 2005
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 11:48:11PM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 22:12 +0100, Richard Moore wrote:
> > > * Glib and GObjects (chosen because it eases the creation of
> > > interoperable libraries)
> > Over my dead body.
> I don't think those people are in need of your approval. So I'm sorry to
> tell you that those people (including me) aren't going to wait for your
> dead body nor your approval to use Glib.
Um, are you not trying to come up with a *standard* configuration system? It
seems to me that there are lots of configuration systems that are not the
standard. Developers of those systems don't need to ask for anyone's
approval. They can do whatever they want. That includes me, of course, and
I'm having a good time at it.
But if you want to be the *standard* one, the thing you need absolutely most
of all is approval. You should try your utmost to get it from everyone
possible. People (not just Richard) are saying, rather emphatically, that
if depends on glib to run, they're not going to like it. You should pay
attention to those people, whether you find them rude or not.
More information about the xdg