[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question"):
> Right. But the 'trad Debian menu' (as outlined in Policy §9.6) has never 
> reached the point where "applications that need not be passed any 
> special command line arguments for normal operation" have a menu entry.

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

Policy says every command line program should have a manpage, but we
have many many command line programs without.  That a project's
coverage isn't complete is not a reason to throw it away.

> I disagree that this is the real dispute: today, the trad Debian menu 
> application metadata database is de facto already of less relevance than 
> the (not-in-policy) the XDG Menu, by orders of magnitude.

I don't understand why you think that something being of `less
relevance' means it should be destroyed.

> >  (a) continue to be maintained in its existing file format
> > 
> >  (b) be translated to a new and more modern file format
> >      (perhaps only for some packages)
> > 
> >  (c) be destroyed.
> > 
> > Given that there are people who want to maintain it, I think (c) is
> > unacceptable.
> Keith's proposal doesn't imply that the trad menu would "be destroyed" 
> (your words),

It does.  There is nothing in Keith's proposal which preserves the
existing trad menu metadata.  According to `apt-file search' that is a
database of 2296 menu entries (in wheezy).

> On the other hand, if there are not enough users and maintainers for the 
> trad menu, I do find it unacceptable to further impose on all 
> maintainers (through a Policy "should") the burden of maintaining this 
> redundant metadata database, which is nowadays _de_facto_ replaced by 
> the technically superior XDG Menu.

The XDG menu database does not contain a menu entry for many things
that the trad menu does.  And this is intentional.  So it is not a


Reply to: