Terminal desktop file name

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert at googlemail.com
Thu Jun 23 16:39:53 UTC 2011


Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:55 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200
> Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
> > > Greetings. 
> > > 
> > > What do folks think about: 
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
> > > 
> > > I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for
> > > clarity... 
> > > 
> > > what do others think?
> > 
> > -1.
> > 
> > What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like
> > terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO
> > use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
> 
> Because if you have several installed, they ALL show up as 'Terminal'
> in the menu and you have no idea which one you are picking? 
> 
> I think there are legit reasons to have several installed. Perhaps you
> use Xfce, but prefer gnome-terminal, 

We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which one
you choose as long as you only have one installed.

> or you want them both installed in
> case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?

I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in
case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install another
terminal. But you cannot just install another email client, you need to
configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't have your mail
available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt that anybody has
installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.

> Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and
> be done with it.

In that case we should rename the package and the binary, too.

Regards,
Christoph




More information about the xfce mailing list