GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 690657
gnome-control-center 3.7 ignores OnlyShowIn in panel .desktop files
Last modified: 2013-01-07 15:02:21 UTC
It looks like the "make all the panels static" change has resulted in Settings ignoring the OnlyShowIn value of panel .desktop files. Ubuntu uses this functionality to show their forked 'Appearance' panel instead of the 'Background' panel for Unity users but GNOME users still get the GNOME experience. The 'Search' panel will probably be similar as Ubuntu's 'Privacy' implementation is built around Zeitgeist instead of Tracker. And Unity search providers are designed differently than GNOME's. It's also useful if someone using another desktop wants to use Online Accounts (such as for mail or chat) but not see all the settings panels that won't really work on their desktop.
I would suggest that this is NOTABUG, but I'll leave it to Bastien to close it. If you want to half the desktop with forked alternatives, you can be expected to patch the control-center to your liking - you're doing that anyway...
If gnome-control-center doesn't want to support OnlyShowIn anymore, then it should remove that line from the .desktop files it ships. On the other hand, it is a useful feature for Ubuntu (and the Ubuntu GNOME Remix in that it allows us to easily set the Ubuntu added panels as OnlyShowIn=Unity; so that we can ship gnome-control-center to Ubuntu GNOME users as closely as possible to how GNOME intends).
(In reply to comment #2) > If gnome-control-center doesn't want to support OnlyShowIn anymore, then it > should remove that line from the .desktop files it ships. Those live in $(datadir)/applications, and that's what menu systems use. > On the other hand, it is a useful feature for Ubuntu (and the Ubuntu GNOME > Remix in that it allows us to easily set the Ubuntu added panels as > OnlyShowIn=Unity; so that we can ship gnome-control-center to Ubuntu GNOME > users as closely as possible to how GNOME intends). Something like what's in bug 650699 is probably a better solution for this. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 650699 ***