On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: >> 2. ?new/different selection criteria. ?for example, it should probably be >> explicitly mentioned that we would give a slight preference for native >> qt/kde applications. > > As already said very often on IRC, both during and outside meetings, I think > we should give more than just "a slight preference" for KDE applications, > particularly for such core desktop/system services such as desktop > integration for Bluetooth. We are a KDE spin, we should ship KDE > applications whenever they aren't completely unshippable. They may be > missing some feature the GNOME alternatives has, but they'll integrate much > better into our KDE desktop, and for all those core services, upstream is > actively working on making them better (e.g. KBluetooth has a new, very > active maintainer now). And of course they have bugs, but so do the GNOME > alternatives. > > Using a GNOME app is acceptable as a temporary workaround when there is > really no KDE one we can ship instead, but not as a long-term solution. > > Pretty much all the minimum requirements listed on that wiki page are far > beyond the minimum level of service required for the app to be shippable. Bugs are one thing, what about entirely missing features? To take your example of bluetooth; audio support it (or at least was) noticeably missing from KBluettooth, while the Gtk (or was it Gnome) equivalent is full featured. -- Fedora 11 (www.pembo13.com)
