Re: [Evolution-hackers] evolution .desktop file
Le jeudi 08 septembre 2005 à 19:44 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit : But why? Why is it wrong to provide a stable way to launch evolution? Do you know you're breaking the way to launch evolution at each new release cycle (from the menu and from the command line)? Do you think it's normal? another example of breakage due to that: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=315871 Cheers, Sebastien Bacher ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] evolution .desktop file
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
Re: [Evolution-hackers] evolution .desktop file
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? The version number exists i presume for parallel installs (not that they work anymore). You could probide two desktop files: one that does not contain any version informations and that runs evolution, and other desktop files for every versions. The evolution binary would launch the latest stable evolution that is installed. I think it's really necessary to provide a stable way that does not change at each new major version to launch evolution. Well, I think you're wrong. -- adfa(evolution-2.4:20087): gtkhtml-WARNING **: cannot find icon: 'stock_insert-url' in gnome ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
