Deprecated keys and values in desktop files

Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger at
Mon Mar 31 20:12:57 CEST 2008

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:01:56 -0700, "Brian J. Tarricone"
<bjt23 at> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:50:23 +0200 Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On dim, 2008-03-30 at 16:29 +0200, Enrico Tröger wrote:
> > > P.S.: Please don't tell me to open bug reports for each single
> > > package with a warning. I know it would be the better way but
> > > there are too many packages. I hope this will also help a bit to
> > > catch developers' eyes on this ;-).
> > 
> > The thing is, there's a lot of chance this will be forgotten if no
> > bugs are opened.
> ... and patches attached ^_~.

Oh come on. I generally support the idea of using a bug tracker for
problems, feature requests and patches.
But in this case, I was really hoping it's enough to bring it up here,
assumung that a few devs actually reading the list (more than once in
a month) and fix a single line in a single file instantly.
Do you really need a patch for one line, which is so obvious?

Not that I'm not want to, but as you can see on output attached in my
first mail, several packages are affected and creating bug reports for
each package with a patch attached for each package is too much work
for me, sorry.

Furthermore, I noticed it doesn't make much difference between using
the mailing list or the bugzilla, bugs and patches are sometimes
ignored on both ;-(.


Get my GPG key from
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list