Re: Gconf glitch

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

"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