An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Waldo Bastian]

On Tuesday 12 April 2005 00:05, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> 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)

That's a misunderstanding as far as KDE and me are concerned. KDE works with 
broad consensus, I can propose changes for KDE but if a significant part of 
KDE developers objects it will not be adopted by KDE.

Cheers,
Waldo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20050412/2afbf369/attachment.pgp