Re: Re: Debian packages and freedesktop.org (Gnome, KDE, etc) menu entries
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:51:53AM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
>
> >> You do realize that the desktop standard has more features than the
> >> debian menu system? Like i18n, icon theming, dynamic construction of a
> >> menu hierarchy based on user /Desktop system preferences and so on? And
> >> that this information would be lost? Why not run it the other way around,
> >> convert the existing debian menu entries to .desktop files and work from
> >> there? I think that this way would help debian on the desktops.
> >
> > Because you gain *nothing* and introduce a pointless transition.
>
> The question to solve is:
> In which format shall application packages store
> their menu information.
It doesn't matter, software can make anything look like anything
else... the question should be, "what requires more work: adding
features to the existing menu system, or changing the entire menu
system."
> Users and developers propose following the
> freedesktop standard and using this.
Users and developers are also resisting the proposal.
> Freedesktop standard supporting
> systems are probably used by 90% of all Debian desktop users.
Unsubstantial, and probably bullshit.
> Now you say: "No let's use the debian menu system, which only we use and
> which is not the default of any major WM". This means losing i18n, dynamic
> construction of menus and icon theming in 90 % of the desktop, because
> Debian menu items do not support these features.
>
> How is this logical? How does the freedesktop standard not "gain" us
> features?
Because nobody but KDE and Gnome use those features and they
already support .desktop files.
> > None of which is the problem of the menu package. It just has to read
> > the fields and pass them to the methods, which then write out suitable
> > data files for the frontend. In the case of kde/gnome, that would be a
> > .desktop file; for everything else, yes, the data is thrown
> > away. Nothing else supports those features, and this is again not our
> > problem.
>
> freedesktop entry features > debian menu file features
>
> Therefore you can do a lossless transition from .desktop to menu, but not
> the other way around. It makes sense to use the .desktop standard.
True, but everyone except KDE and Gnome will toss out the freedesktop
features. Processing bloated .desktop files just to toss the
results is a waste of resources.
> Then those desktops who support it (KDE+Gnome+??) can use the desktop files
> directly. For other (older or simpler) desktops the debian menu system has
> to be adapted to use the .desktop files (addditionaly or instead of the
> menu files).
older -> stability
simpler -> faster, less resources hungry
> I don't understand how anyone can not support this change.
Because:
Nobody benefits from the transition... not even KDE or Gnome, since
they already support the features the freedesktop standard brings to
the table.
also
There is currently no way to provide system-wide alternates to the
distributed .desktop files. Only having per-user customisation
available really, really, sucks, imo.
and
I regularily use KDE, UWM, pdmenu, and Fluxbox, I also have twm, xfce
and mwm installed... processing the menues takes too much time and
resources as it is, and you want to use up more, for what gain?
- Bruce
Reply to: