On tor, 2015-05-28 at 22:27 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Alexander Larsson alexl@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:43 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
Is changing the app-id right? To me, app IDs correspond to application 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 the claim *to the user* that what it packaged is GEdit - having a different 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 rpm metadata).
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 fedora.