Re: Reducing the number of special uris in gnome

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Chipzz wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, James Henstridge wrote:
> > From: James Henstridge <james daa com au>
> > Subject: Re: Reducing the number of special uris in gnome
> >
> > Things like gconfd-2 should probably be under $(prefix)/libexec, as
> > should the majority of the out of process bonobo components that should
> > not be executed directly (ie. they are activated specially by a library
> > or another process).  Not so sure about the control panels, as they
> > _are_ directly callable.
> >
> > James.
> Yes, but no sane person should execute them directly. And those who do
> want to, can always put the dir in their PATH. I think it would be a
> good thing to reduce the number of gnome binaries in $prefix/bin. That
> is, only have actual programs that the average user would execute from
> the command line (a category which I don't think capplets fall in).

      Yes, they would be easy enough to find in something like
$libdir/gnome/capplets. If we insist on being able to call them from the  
commandline by default we could fix our install scripts to create a files 
called /etc/profile.d/gnome.c?sh to fixup the paths.
        Another class of binaries that should go to $libexec/gnome would  
be Nautilus views and other


PS: Appears like the the headers generated by your mail client are broken. 
PINE (and I) had no chance to detect _automatically_ why a reply-to-all 
should include desktop-devel-list gnome org into the lists of 

PGP/GnuPG:     1024-Bit DSA: ID 55E572F3, 1024-Bit RSA: ID EAAF7CF1
"e:-1" is the Slashdot Troll Emoticon. Often seen after the word "Scor"

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]