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 me. > 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. Regards, Rafael Fernández López.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
