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

Re: Bug in cdd-update-menus

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Cosimo Alfarano wrote:

> found and fixed, you'll see it in the next commit.

> > This is really strange because I'm pretty sure that I tried the DRYRUN feature
> > this morning and did a copy and past to create the right link.
> probably you tried it as user or with --user.
Yes - I did it as user ...

> > "As soon as it's needed" is a nice concept. ;-)
> If in Xsession.d, it would update menus before X session started :)
I thought this but do you think it is sane to run update-menus at every
start of an X session?  I've though some "cached" files would be used.

> I do not know if it's the correct/normal way. For this reason I decided
> to posticipate the inclusion of update-menus in cdd-update-menus and
> think/gather infos about it.
> If you run it in a postinst, you shoud run update-menus in a
> /bin/su session, I dislike it.
> User account is sacred ;), and I'd like to touch its home and its
> account less then possible.
> If I find a good/reasonable way to update users menu without
> creating ~/.menu/cdd-user, I'd follow this way, for example.
We should talk to the menu maintainer here.  I fully agree with you in principle.
You must know that my older code was based on the principles of a physicist
(as I am): Just get it working.  Your approach is much better here.

On the other hand I have the following plan to release the med- packages:

  - Wait until med-*_0.6 are installed by ftpmaster (these packages
    needed changes to the override file that's why they are delayed).
  - Upload cdd-0.3 and med-0.7 as soon as possible because cdd-0.3 is
    much better and med-0.7 will depend on it.  Moreover I have a backlog
    of necessary changes for the med packages which I would like to be based
    on the new cdd system (0.3)

On the other hand I do not want to miss the functionality of having the
user menus updated.  So I would love if we could find a (temporary) agreement
which is in any case better than in cdd-0.2 where this is solved dirty
as you know even if not perfect in the sense you described above.

Any suggestions?

Kind regards


Reply to: