An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Jamie McCracken]

Avery Pennarun wrote:

> 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.
> 

While the backend might need glib it should not concern KDE developers 
because they will or should have a C++ client side library which 
connects to the backend via DBUS. Therefore none of the code that the 
developers will utilise in KDE will ever see glib or gobjects as they 
are on the other side of the dbus. I hope this clarfies the subject so 
we can move forward and end this pointless political backbiting.

(I also note Havoc and Waldo will be final arbiters on whether GNOME and 
KDE adopt DConf respectively so its rather academic what other people 
think on the matter)

jamie.

> Have fun,
> 
> Avery
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
> 
>