Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 à 11:14 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > I don't recall that thread being particularly convincing. I've reviewed > it and find it even less convincing. In fact the sole useful data point > in the whole thread was from you; you said that you were hardcoding > paths to gnome-games because /usr/games had caused problems, but you > didn't mention how it caused problems, and you certianly didn't > establish that said problems would affect anything outside of > /usr/games.
* /usr/games not being in the PATH
* /usr/games/$exec and /usr/local/bin/$exec both exist
* $HOME/bin/$exec has the same name but does something else
* another version is installed in /usr/local/bin, and the desktop
file starts referencing the executable in /usr/local/bin,
duplicating the one shipped in /usr/local/share/applications.
These are all examples of how not hardcoding the path can cause
problems. I do not deny this is a minor problem, but it can be fixed by
a minor change (and despite your climbing on your high horse, this is a
minor change).
> Hardcoded paths are evil, and short of said evil getting into policy, I
> am not going there. Period.
WTF are you smoking? Almost all Debian menu files are using hardcoded
paths, for the very same reasons this change is proposed. Hardcoded
paths are evil for some things, they are not in the general case.
> And if it *did* get into policy, dh_desktop would be the wrong place to
> do it anyway.
What other place are you suggesting? Patching thousands of upstream
files?
I have no intention to spend any more time for such a minor issue, but
I’m CCing Vincent in case he wants to go on with it.
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
