Bug#741573: Two menu systems
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 12.21:28 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > This means that we need two systems.
>
> I don't think I missed the point; I was bringing a orthogonal one. I
> understand you think the 'trad' menu is a useful metadata collection
> on top of $PATH for 'every invokable thing'; I happen to disagree.
Right. I understand that some people don't think the comprehensive
menu is useful. However, there are a lot of things in Debian that
some people think aren't useful. The usual principle is that if
someone thinks something useful and wants to do the work to provide
it, they should be able to do so.
That applies, obviously, to individual packages. But it applies to a
lot of other cross-package things too: examples include manpages,
cross compiling, hardening build flags, and indeed the desktop-style
menus. I'm sure people can think of others.
Our general approach is that it is a bug if a package fails to provide
one of these - but that there is no reason not to upload or upgrade
(or migrate to testing) a package for such a bug. Instead, the
workflow is this: the maintainer can choose to work on the bug if they
wish; if they don't, then someone who is interested in the feature can
do the work and submit the result for inclusion in the package.
> We do have more modern formats to use right now; we're not
> discussing adopting a brand new image format, but PNG or SVG!
As I have explained, there are tradeoffs here. To support a more
sophisticated format, all the menu consumers need to be updated.
But the real question is: who should be making this decision ?
We need two menu systems because of disagreements about the content of
the menus. I think that decisions about the technological future of
the trad menu should be made by the people who are working on, and
continue to promote, the comprehensive menu.
> > I don't think there is anything wrong with the xpm format for small
> > fixed-size icons. "Antique" is here a pejorative word for "well
> > supported by a range of mature and reliable software".
>
> For the record, I intended "antique" to litterally mean "antique":
> "Old, (...) out of date." [0]. You are putting words in my mouth by
> assuming I meant it in a pejorative way.
Are you saying you _didn't_ mean it pejoratively ? I'm sorry, but I
find that implausible. Particularly as you now clarify that you mean
"out of date" which is also pejorative.
If you didn't mean it pejoratively, I think you need to seriously
reconsider your communication style, because your comment that xpm was
"antique" looked critical to me. I can't see why you would use that
word if you intended a neutral meaning. And indeed if the meaning was
neutral, the word performs no useful function in your sentence, since
the sentence is arguing against the use of xpm.
Perhaps we are just disagreeing about the meaning of the word
"pejorative". To my mind a phrase describing software is pejorative
if it unjustifiably combines a factual meaning (e.g. "has been around
a long time") with a critical implication (e.g. "... and this a bad
thing").
So, entertainingly, the word "pejorative" is itself pejorative. By
describing your statement as "pejorative" I was implicitly criticising
it, just as by describing xpm as "antique" you were criticising it.
Let me put my criticism of your use of "antique" another way: your
imply that having been around for a long time is a bad thing.
However, I disagree. There are significant advantages to use of a
longstanding file format.
These advantages are more important in the widely-consumed trad menu
than they would be in the less-widely-consumed but more sophisticated
desktop menu.
Ian.
Reply to: