Re: gconftool*

on Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:39:43PM -0500, Adam Hooper ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-25-03 at 10:13 -0800, Silvio Levy wrote:
> > Someone wrote:
> > 
> > > man gconftool-2
> 
> > I'm a bit confused.  
> > How is a manpage for gconftool-2 a substitute for a gconftool manpage?
> > 
> > And why is there gconftool and gconftool-2?  
> 
> gconftool-1 was for the original GConf, which actually was around back
> in the GNOME 1.4 days (though to my knowledge GConf was largely
> disorganized and ad-hoc back then). gconftool-2 is the gconftool for the
> "new" GConf -- the one for GNOME 2.

I have both gconftool-1 and gconftool-2 on my system.

The alternatives system is configured to point gconftool to gconftool-1.
Whether or not this is "correct" I don't know.  It does raise the
additional issue, however, of supporting multiple GNOME versions.
Particularly on an incrementally updated system (e.g.:  Debian, Gentoo).

gconftool-1 lacks a manpage.  gconftool-2 has one, and is present.
 
> In Debian, gconftool is therefore an alternative -- specified
> in /etc/alternatives/gconftool. The manpage *should* also be symlinked;
> it's not because of a simple packaging bug. This bug has nothing to do
> with GNOME.

Um.  How does lack of a manpage for gconftool-1 not have anything to do
with GNOME?


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[email protected]>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Integrity, we've heard of it:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCR9J8efG8443k044RAviuAJ46NLkFH0vrlRcwAtGEtEtNzMGY7QCePT8a
+x6iuVwk8bPUd/NVSs37M9E=
=OlAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----