[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: reassign general



Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:

> It looks to me like a gnome-session thing - the user either set, or left
> the default set to gnome-terminal, and on upgrade gnome-terminal was
> removed.

Yes, that's probably it.  He doesn't have a
~/.gconf/desktop/gnome/applications/terminal/%gconf.xml
file, so the <default>gnome-terminal</default> in
/etc/gconf/schemas/desktop_gnome_applications_terminal.schemas
takes effect.  This file is in the libgnome2-common package.
The Gnome panel uses this setting when it launches an
application that needs a terminal.  The Sawfish menu works
because /etc/menu-methods/sawfish uses term() from menu.h,
which refers to x-terminal-emulator.

> The user probably needs to open the preferred applications
> dialog, and choose x-terminal-emulator, rather than gnome-terminal.

That ought to fix it, but I wonder if Debian should handle
this situation automatically.

For example, there could be a "gnome-terminal-emulator"
alternative akin to x-terminal-emulator but with extra priority
given to gnome-terminal and possibly multi-gnome-terminal.
The schema would then be changed to make this the default.

Alternatively, the default could be a shell script that
first tried to run gnome-terminal and then reverted to
x-terminal-emulator.  This would not require changing the
other terminal-emulator packages.

A more difficult solution would be to incorporate
something like the alternatives system into GConf itself.
Terminal-emulator packages would then register themselves
in this system, the control center would let the user choose
among all registered terminal emulators (the list is currently
hardcoded in gnome-default-applications-properties-structs.c),
and GConf would automatically choose one of them as the default.
(Of course, if the set of alternatives changes, then the default
can also change, and if the user hasn't overridden the default,
then the setting changes, and GConf must notify applications.)



Reply to: