Re: Menu system rewrite update (Aug 6 2002)
At Lindows, we just assumed that our customers would want something different
from most Debian users, so we went ahead and wrote a tool to post-process the
packages and change the menu entries to what we want. We add desktop files
for all the executables, etc. Quite a few other operations, too.
Anyone in the company can change the category of a package by editing a
database through a web interface. I'm wondering if such a scheme might be
useful in a heterogeneous environment like Debian...
On Thursday 08 August 2002 04:31 am, David B Harris wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2002 10:28:21 +0100
>
> Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com> wrote:
> > I know that GNOME2 uses /usr/share/applications, and I believe KDE3
> > does too. The path is specified by the VFolder spec referenced by the
> > policy.
>
> Okay. It still pisses me off, though :)
>
> > Here you perfectly describe the Categories field in detail :)
> >
> > I suggest you read the VFolder spec:
> > https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/xdg-list/2002-July/000569.html
> >
> > Which describes the Categories field and the usage.
>
> My apologies. Really sorry.
>
> Okay, after reading the spec, I'm glad to see they've tried to support a
> more dynamic layout :) But they're still basically using a static
> hierarchy; though the ordering of the "categories" may be changed,
> they'll still remain the same.
>
> Why? Because of the static list of keywords. We've seen before that
> adding keywords to a standard like this is damned near impossible,
> whether it be for political or technical reasons.
>
> I think that for Debian's menu system, we should encourage a more
> freeform approach. No, we don't want people adding stuff willy-nilly. We
> _DO_ want to add stuff though, right? I mean, the categories listed
> there are pretty limited, and they're also narrowly defined. There's no
> "calculator" keyword, for instance. And while there's a "shell" keyword,
> it's defined as a "console shell", something most people will think to
> be a standard CLI.
>
> Anyways. Dunno :) I've had my say, take it for what it's worth ;)
Reply to: