Bug#741573: Two menu systems
Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 15.00:44 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> 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.
I think this is allowed by the patch pointed by Charles, which adds the
following paragraph to the policy:
> Packages can, to be compatible with Debian additions to some window
> managers that do not support the FreeDesktop standard, also provide a
> <em>Debian menu</em> file, following the <em>Debian menu policy</em>,
> which can be found in the <tt>menu-policy</tt> files in the
> <tt>debian-policy</tt> package. It is also available from the Debian
> web mirrors at <tt><url name="/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/"
> id="http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/";></tt>.
As I read it, the complete patch is essentially the addition of a 'desktop'
menu 'should' and a s/should/can/g for the 'trad' menu. That patch got its
three seconds within the usual Policy process but got (fully) reverted by
Bill.
Are you suggesting the 'trad' menu should stay at 'should'? Do you agree with
the promotion of the 'desktop' menu to a 'should'?
> (snip a lot of vocabulary nitpicking)
Let's rephrase succintly then: xpm is an old format; there is a trend showing
that more and more packages ship .desktop files [0] along with svg and/or png
icons; it would therefore ease maintainers' adoption of 'trad' menu entries if
the 'trad' menu would just support these new icon formats in addition or in
replacement of xpm. That's all I wanted to say.
> 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.
Your assertions about how widely the two menu systems are consumed seem quite
bold to me and are at least not backed by Cyril numbers in 741573#35 [0].
Cheers,
OdyX
[0] <20140325185237.GE15553@mraw.org>
Reply to: