Le vendredi 03 juillet 2009 à 20:42 +1000, Trent W. Buck a écrit : > Hi Josselin, > > Please find attached two further patches I have written for > update-gconf-defaults.
I have the feeling that you want to somehow replace GConf by something else being configured manually using these files. There is no benefit in doing it this way, and I’m not going to encourage an underhanded fork of GConf. > The first simply allows you to write comment > lines like > > # Epiphany > > in the input files. This just strikes me as an obvious thing, because > it allows you to safely include explanatory comments in the pref files. This looks like an acceptable ideas, comments are always better. > The second makes the script ignore files that do not match the > patterns described by run-parts(1), so for example anything with a dot > in it will be ignored. This is important for me as I have things like > inc.mk in the my private source directory. It would also be useful if > you wanted to store the source files in ~/.gconf itself! By default, packages with a dot in their name will ship a file with a dot in its name. So in this state the patch is not acceptable. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
