On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 00:50 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 10:23 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > On Wed, September 7, 2005 09:37, Not Zed wrote: > > > > > > Sounds like a design issue with the panel to me. Why should it > > > hard-code any applications at all? And if it does hard-code them, then > > > it can hard-code the appropriate one for that gnome version i guess. > > > > Because we want to have default launchers on the panel for the most used > > applications, ie web browser and e-mail client. > > > > And we can't change this at every release cycle since this is the > > configuration for the user: when the user upgrades to GNOME 2.14, his > > nice evolution-2.4 launcher will disappear if we hard-code the version > > in the desktop filename. > > Umm, why can't you change it each release cycle? you've got 6 months to > change the name. Is that not long enough? Would you like more time?
Here's the scenario: - User logs into Gnome 2.x for the first time and gets a shiny new panel launcher that's hard-coded to invoke evolution-2.y - User upgrades to the new stable Gnome 2.x+2, and the previously existing panel launcher stops working, since it points to evolution-2.y, but the machine now has evolution-2.y+2 installed. Maybe a new user would get a shiny new panel launcher for evolution-2.y+2, but users existing before the upgrade are out of luck. The obvious solution is: - Don't hard-code evolution versions in default panel launchers; have them invoke "evolution", which should be a symlink to the latest stable version. - Avoid hard-coding evolution versions in launchers in the menus, since they can be dragged to the panel or the desktop, where they will bitrot. - If we need an "evolution unstable" launcher, that should also invoke a symlink that can be updated when a new unstable version is released. -Mark Gordon _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers