Re: Will porting to GIO fix trash bugs? (Was Re: Please can we get a consistent desktop neutral trash behaviour.)

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 14:43 +1000, Lex Hider wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:46:05 +0100
> Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 22:52 +1000, Lex Hider wrote:
> > 
> > > >From what I could understand, the answer was that gnome isn't compatible
> > > with the freedesktop trash spec.
> > > 
> > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/trash-spec
> > 
> > gnome-vfs trash support existed well before the trash specification,
> > hence the disconnection between the two.
> > 
> > > Is the gnome trash implementation compatible with the above spec?
> > 
> > just as a side-note: gvfs correctly uses $XDG_DATA_HOME/Trash, so
> > projects using the GIO library will behave correctly (it still means
> > gnome-vfs should be fixed as well, though).
> > 
> 
> >From what I could see from the gio 2.22 inclusion debate on this list, nautilus is currently being ported to gio, and load/save code in gnome apps to be ported from gnome-vfs to gio.
> 
> Once nautilus has been ported from gnome-vfs to gio, will nautilus deletions end up in .local/ ?
> Am I correct in saying that porting the deletion code in the various apps to gio would solve this issue?
> Will we need to port these apps anyway if nautilus-gio uses .local/ ?
> 
> Is the solution as simple as these 3 steps?
> 1) Identify which gnome apps can delete files.
> 2) Port the relevant deletion code from gnome-vfs to gio.
> 3) Intelligently migrate .Trash/ to .local/ 

That should work, yes.

Making current gnome (w/ gnome-vfs) use the new trash spec is a rather
large change, since the trash code is rather spread out over the code
and not set up for an easy way to change it. Its certainly doable by a
dedicated person though.