Re: [Evolution-hackers] evolution .desktop file

[Harish Krishnaswamy <kharish novell com>]

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 19:44 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:

> 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.
> > > 
> > > 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
> 
Point taken - I agree evolution-(version).desktop should rather be
evolution.desktop and that installing symlinks (sans version) [1] would
be right for launchers and menu items. 


I'll write a patch to fix this on HEAD right away - (guess the 2.4 bus
is already gone - tinkering with it is likely to cause more annoyance)
 
Harish

 
[1] Some distros do this for us now. We could do this ourselves
henceforth.