On mer, 2009-05-13 at 23:12 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 13 mai 2009 à 09:38 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit : > > Uh, oh, wait, the version is on 16 bit, so I indeed have 1.1, which is > > then not used at all by thunar. So we're kind-of safe for the moment, > > but at one point the check should be added to be able to read 1.1 files. > > All you need to support the 1.1 version is to update the xdgmime files > to a newer version (e.g. from the glib2.0 package). No, thunar code has a version check embedded. > > However, what you are saying implies that the version check works for > the 1.0 version in the system directories. I’m not sure whether the > check failing to work is a regression in the new code or if it’s only in > the home directory that it breaks. No no, the check perfectly works (in thunar though). > > > Though I'm not sure changing the filename is a good idea, and yeah, why > > not putting the version check in the code so apps can use “old” and > > “new” formats? > > That would probably mean duplicating the code. Yeah, but handling the renaming means duplicating too, I guess. -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part