Re: [Evolution-hackers] evolution .desktop file

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 �0:50 +0800, Not Zed a �it :
> 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?

I think you don't understand. This is the user configuration. Do you
change the user configuration without asking the user? And it's getting
more complex when the user creates a special launcher with
"evolution-2.4" as command... Oh, and think about the menu editor.
Suppose the user wants to move the Evolution launcher to another menu.
And then upgrades. I'm pretty sure he won't understand why his evolution
launcher is back where it was at the beginning.

We could do it, but this would really be a horrible hack.

> > > 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.

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?

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas press�