Commit notifications for specs

Rafael Fernández López ereslibre at
Wed Apr 30 09:41:38 PDT 2008

Hi all,

Despite the idea that Pau suggested of not letting "non-compliant fd.o" 
application getting into our project repositories can be good and positive 
for the projects themselves, I wanted to point out some spots on his mail.

> - The KUIServer developer is trying to put together a JobViewServer
> spec but, AFAIK, the Mathusalem developer helping too much. Bad for
> everybody because we might end with a sub-par spec which is too tied
> to KDE/Qt.

I'm that KUIServer developer, and yes, despite I haven't had feedback lately 
from the Mathusalem developer, I have had it from the Gnome community, what 
is at last point, good for everybody (there are threads in this mailing list 
about our discussions).

I wanted to clarify that in this certain case we haven't got a spec tied to 
KDE or Qt, since this spec only contains a D-Bus interface, and is 
platform-generic, as you know if you have read the spec proposal mail from 

> 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.

I would let non compliant applications/libraries get in our repositories, but 
on certain places where they can be improved: branches, playground... but 
certainly not on the "official" repository, as Pau said. That means, not 
being part of the official release of the desktop itself, in any module.

Rafael Fernández López.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : 

More information about the xdg mailing list