On tor, 2015-05-28 at 22:27 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Alexander Larsson
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:43 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
>> Is changing the app-id right? To me, app IDs correspond to
>> identity. If a user has a Fedora version of GEdit installed, and then
>> installs a newer version of GEdit from upstream, I would expect:
>> - Only one GEdit icon appears in the list of applications
>> - If the user marked GEdit as a favorite, the favorite icon
>> retargets to the newer installed version
>> By using the name GEdit and the GEdit icon, Fedora has already made
>> claim *to the user* that what it packaged is GEdit - having a
>> application ID under the hood can only lead to confusion.
> Yeah, i agree, its not like having the fedora version and the upstream
> version installed in parallel would work well anyway (which is which in
> the shell?). I think we need to handle this in the same way that we
> handle two different versions of an upstream gedit installed in
> parallel (which currently has only one at a time being exported to the
> system). We probably need to mark somehow that this is a fedora built
> version though. Maybe we could add a packager field to the metadata.
Why would that matter to the user? If gedit 3.16.2 is built by Fedora
or Upstream is more or less an implementation detail.
Having some kind of provenance seems like a generally useful thing to
have. Not saying we need to shove it in the users face, but we do
similar things for rpms (f22 tag in version, Packager and Vendor tags in
If you find some random org.gnome.gedit app installed on your system it
would be nice to know who built it. Especially since we can now run
cross-distro apps, which means not (almost) all your apps are from
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
He's a superhumanly strong amnesiac waffle chef with a robot buddy named
Sparky. She's a sarcastic antique-collecting bodyguard with an MBA from
Harvard. They fight crime!