Re: [Evolution] new oaf problem ?

["Michael Leone" <turgon mike-leone com>]

> Evolution snapshots are not meant to be used my end-users. The preview
> releases arent even targeted towards end-users. If you want a "smoother
> upgrade path", I'd suggest waiting til 1.0 is completed. Evolution is
> based on RAPIDLY changing libs that  wont be apart of GNOME til 1.4
> which is over a month away. Evolution has a disclaimer everytime you
> open it up for a reason.

Nonsense.

We're SUPPOSED to be testing the software, and reporting bugs/making
suggestions/making feature requests for making the program better.

Well, that was his suggestion for making the testing/upgrading easier. And
quite a good one, too.

Why force users to go thru this debugging/clean-up procedure, when including
the clean-up/process killing procedure in the pre- or post-install scripts
will avoid it all together? Especially when it's something that MUST be done
for proper upgrading/installation of the Ximian company's software (i.e.,
"rm $TMPDIR/orbit*" and "oaf-slay").

It's not like he's asking for the world; just a bit more attention to detail
in the packaging to provide ease of use for the end-user.

> On 06 Feb 2001 16:39:17 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Well, I had done this and rebooted (not related, kernel change), and it
> > wasn't better. I had to remove /tmp/orbit*, then to restart everyting
> > oaf-related to make the trick.
> > This is really a pain in the neck. Why can't the packagers use the
script
> > possibility present in the packages (rpm and deb) to clean up everything
> > when updating oaf ? This would save some time for end-users. I remember
a
> > past discussion about not killing oafd (I don't remember precisely the
> > reason), well each time I kill it it seems harmless. So why don't we
have a
> > smoother upgrade path ?