Commit notifications for specs

Pau Garcia i Quiles pgquiles at
Wed Apr 30 09:33:58 PDT 2008

Quoting Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgquiles at>:

> Quoting Vincent Untz <vuntz at>:
>> Le mercredi 30 avril 2008, à 17:18 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles a écrit :
>>> Quoting Vincent Untz <vuntz at>:
>>> > I totally agree that we need to put more than just versions of the
>>> > specs, but also the adoption status, a kind of stability status (is it
>>> > still in development, with potential incompatible changes in the
>>> > future?), draft vs released status, etc.
>>> Regarding the adoption status, stability status, etc, I'd like to urge
>>> both KDE eV and Gnome Foundation to "enforce"'s
>>> specifications, as I discussed with Vincent and others at Guademy last
>>> weekend.
>>> Long story short, it would be like this: if there is a fd.o spec for
>>> what you are doing and you are not using it, your app/library won't
>>> enter the official KDE/Gnome/whatever repository *unless* you provide
>>> good reasons for not implementing the fd.o spec (that "unless" is
>>> there in case the spec is disconnected from reality or plain junk).
>> Oh, I remember you mentioning this, but I forgot to ask you: any example
>> of KDE or GNOME apps not following a spec without a good reason?
>> (note that the issue is a bit orthogonal to the discussion, since the
>> specs are, hopefully, more widely adopted than just in GNOME & KDE)
> For example, KIconLoader in KDE.
> And two other examples, not exactly what you asked but important IMHO:
> - The KUIServer developer is trying to put together a JobViewServer
> spec but, AFAIK, the Mathusalem developer helping too much. Bad for

Sorry, that should have been "... developer is not helping too much."

> everybody because we might end with a sub-par spec which is too tied
> to KDE/Qt.
> - KIO, GIO and GnomeVFS. KIO is the I/O framework used by KDE since,
> at least, 1999. But the Gtk+ developers decided to go on their own and
> implement GIO without talking to KDE developers. GIO was developed
> while KDE was developing the 4.0 version, a very good moment to break
> compatibility. This has been a sad, missed opportunity to define a
> common spec. Even if a " Input/Output spec" is defined
> now, it would probably imply deep changes in KIO and GIO which are
> probably not acceptable.
> Please note I'm not saying software that does not implement the fd.o
> spec should be trashed, only that if you want your software to be part
> of the official repository:
> * If you don't implement the fd.o spec, you *must* justify it (i. e.
> show why it is a bad spec)
> * If you don't implement the fd.o because for no reason, keep your
> software in your own repository.
> --
> Pau Garcia i Quiles
> (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at

Pau Garcia i Quiles
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)

More information about the xdg mailing list