An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

Philip Van Hoof spamfrommailing at
Tue Apr 12 01:19:31 EEST 2005

On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 17:55 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote:

> 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.

Yes, ok. You have a point here Avery. However. In order to get (for
example) my attention or to make me want to listen to requirements,
you'll need to at least try not to be rude.

The project will most likely use a lot KDE technologies. What we are
trying to do at this stage of the project is to collect the requirements
and try match that with both technologies and solutions.

It's not even said whether GConf or KConfig will be reused (forked or
greatly improved or whatever). At this moment only the requirements are
being collected.

Nothing has been decided. And this guy is _already_ yelling things like
"over my dead body".  

Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com

More information about the xdg mailing list