ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, and on the phone image we're not using those Exec lines anyway.
They won't work in Unity8. They're just there for backwards
compatibility.

Click will rerun the hooks when the user logs in if it detects a change
that is relevant for them. For instance, if an image update included a
new version of a click that has data in it that there's a user hook for,
that will be run on next login. So the answer really is: it depends. :-)
In general, the hooks should run when they need to update, which may be
because of an image update.

Ted

On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 13:26 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:

> Oh. I guess they don't need to be regenerated. I thought they were
> generated with upstart-app-launch in the Exec line, but it looks like
> they're just calling aa-exec-click instead. Sorry.
> 
> Every image update/flash will result in all hooks being re-run for all
> packages? That was what I was asking. Of course the hook would be run if
> the package was installed again, or a new package was installed, but for
> existing installs, I don't think the hooks are re-run on full image
> updates, are they? (I don't mean for pre-installed apps.)
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 11:55 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> > 
> > Not sure why they'll need to be all regenerated, mostly those desktop
> > files are a bridge, but not used by UAL at all. I hope that someday
> > soon they'll go away on the Unity8 desktop.
> > 
> > That being said, they will be as the click hooks are rerun by the
> > package hook and the result will be removing one hook and adding
> > another WRT to click. In both cases the hook gets executed.
> > 
> > Ted
> > 
> > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 12:49 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: 
> > > Well, won't it break all existing click apps when the update is
> > > installed? Or will the update regenerate all installed click .desktop
> > > files for the user as well? If not, then at least a symlink will be
> > > required until they are all regenerated.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 11:43 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > No reason to take on tech debt if we don't have to. Certainly if a
> > > > bunch of people reply that it's an issue it's not impossible to do
> > > > that. But cruft is cruft, I'd rather be proactive on cleaning it.
> > > > 
> > > > Ted
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 12:36 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: 
> > > > > Is there a particularly good reason to not provide a symlink, or a
> > > > > wrapper script that issues a deprecation warning when run, for
> > > > > compatibility?
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 11:13 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Folks,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Upstart App Launch is dead, long live Ubuntu App Launch!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We've discussed it before and I've got a MR ready for UAL to make the
> > > > > > naming change so that we're ready to move away from Upstart as our
> > > > > > Init system. I'd like to work with folks on running sed through their
> > > > > > code and landing this change next week. If you've got a test script or
> > > > > > something that is dependent on the name "upstart-app-launch" please be
> > > > > > prepared to change. In theory, we should be able to do it in one silo
> > > > > > and folks shouldn't notice, I'm just worried about dependencies that
> > > > > > are external to debs or not mentioned. If you have a dependency that
> > > > > > you know of that I'm unlikely to find, please mention it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If for some reason this seriously effects you in a negative way,
> > > > > > please speak up now!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ted
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part