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

Re: alternatives and priorities

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:41:12PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:25:28PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Fixing this wasn't very hard, but it made me consider why we let a
> > maintainer decide what the alternative priority of an editor would be.
> Mm -- I always wondered why xfce-session-manager had a priority over
> gnome-session-manager by default. (One might argue that GNOME is
> installed by default, though, so if a user installs XFCE that's a
> conscious choice...)


Recent gnome-session and xfce4-session call update-alternatives with a
priority of 50.  ksmserver appears to use 40.

gnome-session in sarge used 20, ksmserver in sarge used 40 and
xfce4-session still used 50.

It does look like we might have started a bit of priority inflation
there.  I don't remember why we set the priority to 50 in the first
place.  I'd be happy (as one of the xfce guys) for everyone to use the
same priority to be honest.

Simon  [ huggie@earth.li ] *\   "Emergency!  Emergency!  There's an  \**
****** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\          emergency going on!" - Holly  \*
****** [  Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\                                        \

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: