Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question"):
> I'd appreciate it if you would look at the restatement at the bottom and
> help me make sure I'm understanding the technical implications of the
> proposal we're considering.
> That doesn't make sense to me.
> Without an update to section 9.6, we're saying that we agree with the
> trad menu's scope, but want the data represented in .desktop files.
In part, sorry, I have misunderstood. I read you as writing "_with_"
an update to 9.6.
But even reading what you wrote (sorry) it's not just a question of
It's also categorisation. The .desktop files and the menu files have
different taxonomy and I think in some cases different labelling. If
the TC says, without saying anything else, that .desktop files should
be used, maintainers will discard the taxonomy and labelling in the
menu files in favour of that already present in .desktop files.
Also, consider a maintainer of a package which currenly only has a
menu file, who is trying to conform to the new scheme. They will
probably think they are supposed to discard the menu file taxonomy in
favour of asking desktop environment teams about the proper DE
taxonomy of their program. This isn't going to work well if the DE
teams think the program shouldn't have a menu item. What is the
maintainer of `bc' supposed to do ?
> I personally think that would be bad technically, but I don't see how
> you get from that to "delete". You might get quickly to "the TC is
> spewing nonsense because a bunch of interface work needs to be done to
> make what they've asked us to do possible."
> However I consider that different from "delete"
This is of course another objection.
I don't think a policy update to say "use desktop files" without
specifying specific fields is a sensible idea. Perhaps the TC could
ask someone to write such a thing by saying in general terms what was