On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 16:06 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > What do other WG members think? > > > While I focused on xdg base dir spec, I would like WG members to look > at which freedesktop.org specs are at a mature stage and require them > along with xdg base dir. freedesktop.org itself doesn't make that very > clear. I personally think that this entire angle of 'approval/exception' for 'allowing' applications onto the Workstation is a bit misguided, in particular for something like this. It is worth keeping the overall goal in mind: We want to offer high-quality applications to the Workstation users - as many as possible. It is one thing to write guidelines about best practices for logos, icons and such - those are things that can be fixed up in packaging. Changing the location of config files on the filesystem is much more involved, and really needs upstream acceptance of the change. Otherwise, you're invalidating all the documentation that talks about configuration, and information that our users find on the internet will confusingly not apply to the Fedora fork of the app. Therefore, I think we can't be too strict about this; we can certainly recommend this as best practice, and continue pushing for this as we've already done here: https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders But I don't think we can exclude apps based on this, if we want to be serious about having the best-of-breed applications available. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
