Re: Reducing the number of special uris in gnome

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

Chipzz wrote:

> On 1 Jul 2002, Bruce Robert Pocock wrote:
>
>  
>
> > From: Bruce Robert Pocock <brpocock 10east com>
> > Subject: Re: Reducing the number of special uris in gnome
> >    
>
> [Snipped stuff about MacOS]
>
> I think this is all basically a non-issue. What may be an issue is the
> number of binaries in $prefix/bin... Do all the capplets (yes I know I
> shouldn't use that word) really have to go there? Can't we put them some
> place else? Yes this would break people who manually start the capplets,
> they'ld have to type in the complete path, but apart from that I don't
> think anything else would break, if we changed the .desktop files.
>
> Same comment for gconfd-2, can't we put it in $prefix/lib or something,
> nobody should start it manually anyway, it's started by libgconf, and
> that can be changed too...
>  
Things like gconfd-2 should probably be under $(prefix)/libexec, as 
should the majority of the out of process bonobo components that should 
not be executed directly (ie. they are activated specially by a library 
or another process).  Not so sure about the control panels, as they 
_are_ directly callable.

James.

--
Email: james daa com au              | Linux.conf.au 2003 Call for Papers out
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/ |   http://conf.linux.org.au/cfp.html