Re: Gconf glitch
- From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- To: "R.I.P. Deaddog" <maddog linuxhall org>
- Cc: Gnome 2 List <gnome-2-0-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Gconf glitch
- Date: 02 Oct 2001 23:08:49 -0400
"R.I.P. Deaddog" <maddog linuxhall org> writes:
> This is a minor conflict :
>
> Both Gconf1 and GConf2 creates a symlink $bindir/gconftool to respective
> real binary, namely gconftool-1 and gconftool-2. Is the usage of gconftool
> untrustworthy now, and any package dependent on GConf2 should call or run
> gconftool-2 instead?
Well, at the moment it doesn't matter, because the two gconftools
support all the same things.
I'm not sure what the right thing to do is; I'm tempted to say that
people who care about version should include the version, and others
should use the symlink. But that won't work out so well in practice.
Still I hate to make people type gconftool-2 on the command line.
Havoc
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]