View Single Post
Posts: 3,328 | Thanked: 4,476 times | Joined on May 2011 @ Poland
#920
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Right, this is pretty much the problem here; it may have been designed as a debugging tool, but it has obviously become a desirable feature for end-users. And as such, there will be those who desire for apps to manage how the tool works...



I would agree, if the X-CSSU field was the mechanism being used to break the rotation lock -- it makes sense used in that manner. But the X-CSSU field in question here is being used to circumvent the user's choice of rotation.

Why in the world should app designers need to interfere with the user's choices? Mainly, because CSSU users want the enhanced rotation, but they don't want the headaches that come with it. And the headaches only come with it because "forcerotation" gets applied to too many apps.

A whitelist-based approach removes this problem. And as such, it removes the need for the app writer to interfere with the user's choices as well; and so, the X-CSSU "undo forced rotation" field should become unnecessary.
I think that X-CSSU field is very necessary. If you don't even think about portrait (you don't give a damn) you omit it. But if you know your app is unusable in portrait (e.g. Calendar, Qt Quick apps), you X-CSSU it! And if an user really wants it, he just edits .desktop
__________________
If you want to support my work, you can donate by PayPal or Flattr

Projects no longer actively developed: here