requiring .desktop files to be executable ?

[Michael Pyne]

On Tuesday 24 February 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
> 2009/2/25 Michael Pyne <mpyne at purinchu.net>:
> > It still doesn't guarantee every .desktop file that users need will be
> > found though, so I believe some kind of dialog will be necessary. I know
> > they have code now to perform the permissions upgrade so the dialog
> > itself shouldn't be too hard I would imagine.
>
> Heh, I'm against such a dialog.  I can't really see how it can be
> worded without just confusing the user even more.

Sorry, I'm referring to the normal "you're about to run this program" dialog 
we have to do the job.  I'm saying they're going to need it whether or not 
they have an auto-upgrade script -- there's no way to find all the .desktop 
files that may possibly need upgrading without searching '/', and that won't 
fix files that the user doesn't own.

Of course, our dialog doesn't do that either, but at least the user will know 
there's an issue.  (I guess we can see about handling that case better some 
day)

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20090224/6ad94e1c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20090224/6ad94e1c/attachment.sig>