libpurple theme support improvements

Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras at
Sun Jan 18 19:18:48 EST 2009

2009/1/18 John Bailey <rekkanoryo at>:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I've discussed before about how stupid it is to try to do the job of
>> half a decade old distributions. It doesn't help to keep discussing
>> this anymore.
> And you're being intentionally inflammatory and blind.  I'm not talking about
> distributions that are five or more years old.  I'm talking about current
> versions of distributions that don't cater to every whim of an application
> developer who says "I must have libraries X, Y, and Z or not support important
> feature A."  I don't care about older RHEL distributions, but I do care about
> the current one and the previous one that can still be reasonably supported for
> at least another year (or until we include vv support, whichever comes first),
> as well as the current Debian stable distribution which does not contain this
> library.

New things are created all the time. There's no point in making
development more difficult just because distributions might have a
little problem. If they can't add the dependency, they can live
without the feature, no big problem.

Anyway this is not the reason why you don't want to use libcanberra,
so no point in arguing it.

>> It probably doesn't have any issues, since it's very small.
> "Probably doesn't" and "doesn't" are two very different things.  It is also
> meaningless since, as I said, it's just one more annoying library to have to
> keep track of for no practical gain.

Exactly, if neither you nor me know for sure there's no point of
arguing it, it's just mere speculation.

>> I'm sorry, but ignoring freedesktop effectively means you don't play
>> well with others. You don't have a commitment, you just do whatever
>> you want, if that happens to be the same as other people are doing,
>> well that's just luck. Or perhaps there's another collaboration body
>> like freedesktop you are participating, hearing others and coming up
>> with good standards?
> The fact that exists and has standards doesn't mean that they're
> *good* standards.  Last I checked, there's law that states that every
> application must support these standards, whether the application developer
> likes them or not.  There's nothing wrong with us supporting the 30 year old
> standard of doing whatever we want.  Note also that we existed long before these
> so-called standards appeared, and we have no obligation to change and comply,
> even if we're implementing new features already covered under the standards.

Yes, but even a bad standard is better than no standard. If you think
you have a better way, then propose it as a new standard. Do some

KDE also existed before many of these standards, as d-bus, and they
made a compromise, they dropped their IPC mechanism and implemented
the one from fd.o; it's better for the users.

Also you ignored my question, which other collaboration bodies are you
participating in order to create "good standards"? None, because
there's only one body, and you don't care about standardization

>> I'm not trying to change who you are, I just want you to accept it.
> Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.  All you ever do is troll on
> this list, and a number of us (myself included) would like to see you really
> leave, like you claim you have done.
> I'm done with you.  Any further replies from you will fall on deaf ears.

Ah, it was getting late for the ad-hominem attack. That has nothing to
do with your commitment to collaboration, you just took an easy shoot
to shift the blame to me, I don't really see the point of that.

Anyway, my claim still stands; you don't play well with others. You
are even saying that yourself. I don't see why are your pissed at me
when we are saying the same thing.

Felipe Contreras

More information about the Devel mailing list