Re: No more module proposals - decisions need to be made

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:43:26 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
> I continue to feel it's silly to pull in dependencies that have nothing
> to do with freedesktop.org and specifically interoperability. In the
> spirit of keeping the first platform release uncontroversial and safe I
> think these should be left out. We should be strongly erring on the sid=
e
> of *fewer* modules.
>=20
> So that implies, in my opinion which people are free to argue with:

[gutting of proposed modules list]

Hmm, I was under the impression that the future might be something like
this:

	purchase RHEL4, note it supports:
		- LSB 2.1
		- Freedesktop.Org Platform 1.2
		- GNOME Desktop 2.B
		- KDE Springboard 0.6

	purchase Quark, note it requires:
		- x86 / PPC
		- lots of memory and disk
		- LSB 2.0
		- FreeDesktop.Org Platform 1.1
and
	purchase TurboTAX:"Attack of the IRS", note it requires:
		- x86
		- connection to Internet
		- LSB 1.1
		- Freedesktop.Org Platform 1.0

and feel confident that both programs would run without issue on my
distribution.  Thus I would actually kick out of all the proposed -specs
(does it make sense to say you 'implement' a platform?) and have:

zlib (1.2.1), startup-notification (0.7), fontconfig (2.2.x), libjpeg
(v6b), libpng (1.2.x), libxml2 (2.6.x), X (X.Org 6.7.x, XFree86 4.3)

As actual implementations third-parties can rely on once they see
Freedesktop.Org Platform X.Y support.

I wish I had noticed the proposal stuff a bit earlier, as I would have
suggested:

shared-mime-info (0.15)
	- implies glib
	- intltool
desktop-file-utils (0.9)
	- implies popt
	- implies glib

as two other useful implementations to have in the initial Freedesktop.Or=
g
Platform.

Cheers,
Anand