Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And over the weekend, the saga regarding Canonical, GNOME, and KDE has continued. Lots of comments all over the web, some heated, some well-argued, some wholly indifferent. Most interestingly, Jeff Waugh and Dave Neary have elaborated on GNOME's position after the initial blog posts by Shuttleworth and Seigo, providing a more coherent look at GNOME's side of the story.
Thread beginning with comment 466148
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Coherency?
by molnarcs on Tue 15th Mar 2011 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Coherency?"
Member since:

Hmm, that's interesting, for a specification or any low level common framework only makes sense if it can be expected to be present on every system. Again, D-BUS comes to mind - D-BUS (and fontconfig, libixml, etc.) would not make any sense if desktops could not expect it on any system they are being installed on. If statusnotifier is to become a spec, then it must be just like that.

Mark seems to mix up external and optional dependencies. Actually, some cross-desktop frameworks are BOTH! HAL comes to mind - if present, DE's can (or could, it's being deprecated) take advantage of it, if not (for example, FreeBSD got HAL much later than Linux), they would fall back on their old mechanisms. Regardless, this is not a really crucial issue, it's more like a distraction (look, Mark is wrong, muhahaha). Not to mention the fact that the very first line on the page the poster links to reads like this (bold is mine):

External Dependencies of GNOME 2.91.x

This page lists the versions of external dependencies that GNOME modules may depend upon, as well as a recommended version of each dependency.

So are external dependencies the absolute minimum requirements that MUST be there on every system, or are they optional?

Reply Parent Score: 2