gnome-hello

[Bryce Harrington]

Hi Mike,

Regarding this issue of determining a "base platform" for desktop linux
applications, is what you're looking for to be some sort of documented
"desktop capabilities/requirements" list?  I ask because this is
something we've been putting some thought into at OSDL with some of our
desktop-oriented member companies, that could, for instance, specify the
particular bits that software packagers could expect to be present
across any distro/desktop.

Like you mention, LSB doesn't cover that particular level of detail.
Does this sort of thing sound like something autopackage could make use
of?  If so, maybe we could pick your brain about it a bit?

Bryce


On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Mike Hearn wrote:

> Owen Taylor wrote:
> > (Excluding deprecated or marked-unstable functionality). Possible
> >  other additions,  in what I would consider priority order:
>  >
> >  libglade
>
> Hmm, I thought the long term plan was to move libglade inside GTK+?
>
> >  libgnomeprint, libgnomeprintui
> >  GConf
>
> I don't think the LSB wants to go the route of specifying parts of GNOME
> or KDE. They are already platforms with strict versioning policies, 3rd
> party ISVs can depend on "Gnome 2.6" as a whole and get an ABI stable
> platform, if not one that's formally specced out. Also, the uh ...
> discussions favouring one desktop project over the other could cause
> would be painful.
>
> It's probably best to stick to software that has wide usage outside of
> any particular desktop, so GTK+, Qt and libxml2 would qualify but
> libgnome*/gconf would not.
>
> thanks -mike
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at freedesktop.org
> http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>