On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > As far as I'm aware, Canonical were reasonably good about proposing the > > libindicator patches for upstream inclusion, but many upstream projects > > - especially those that are part of GNOME - weren't exactly rushing to > > adopt the patches. I think Canonical did try to implement libindicator > > support as a plugin for apps with sufficently sophisticated plugin > > frameworks, which obviously helps. > > That's really GNOME's fault. :-( Canonical explicitly designed > libappindicator (which is the library applications are expected to use, it > uses libindicator behind the scenes; there's also libindicate which is for > communication apps to notify new messages and such, confusing, isn't it?) to > be interoperable with KDE's status notifier spec, and thus applications > supporting libappindicator will also integrate better into the KDE Plasma > workspaces than applications still stuck on the legacy XEmbed-based system > tray protocol and/or using a GNOME-only gnome-shell extension. But GNOME is > giving the finger to cross-desktop protocols and refusing to implement them.
GNOME never gave an opinion on the spec, we gave an opinion on the library, which was really just a huge pile of bugs (I know, they patched a bunch of the applications I maintain, and I get to receive a large number of crashers because of it). > It's too bad that our maintainers for the affected packages are often one > and the same as the GNOME maintainers and thus Fedora is mostly siding with > GNOME on this and refusing to carry those patches, hurting all non-GNOME > desktops, not just Unity. I refuse to carry the patches because libappindicator is far too buggy to be widely deployed. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
