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

Re: Debian menu system update

On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 10:10, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> [030530 19:45]:
> > What do you mean "consistent concept overall"?  Using the freedesktop
> > standards makes things more consistent, not less.
> Then please point to a documentation, how to overwrite the menus
> installed with the packages as admin or other things like this.

Basically you would edit the system .menu file, say


> We will need to add some way to get windowmangers and modules
> to existing windowmanagers handled. 

No window managers should have to change.  We will probably have to
update their /etc/menu-methods/foo though.

> The most of the complexity is not what and how to do things, but to see
> what needs to be done. A classical menu item is easy to do and well
> documented. Checking a .dektop-file, if it is good enough to be included
> it not so easy

And why is that?  

The .desktop format is quite well documented:


> , but easy to miss looking into it at all.

The idea is that we switch to .desktop as our native format as a first
step.  That way you can't "miss looking into it at all".

> If it is translated upstream and the name is usable, then there is no
> problem in taking the translations. If it is not, it has to be done
> anyway.

Yes, but the point is that the former case will be the vast majority.

> I strongly believe the menu is something to be maintained. 

I strongly believe that too.

> Debian is
> about quality and Debian is the only one to include almost any piece
> of free software. We cannot let slip in whatever any upstream thinks
> is the best place for its items.

No kidding.  Why do you keep repeating this, when I have answered that
we can easily make whatever edits are required?

> Let me come back to my directory example. Some time ago people switching
> to Debian had to learn headers are in /usr/include and nothing installed
> by debian is in /opt. I did not think it was a bad things and others
> following have showed it was the right way.

But your example is a straw man, because all those paths are specified
by another non-Debian-specific standard (the FHS).  Just like the FHS,
the Desktop Menu standard will save administrators time.

> (Next step is abolishing
> update-alternative, just another things people have to learn...)


> It was designed to cope the needs of KDE and GNOME. These are well known
> to favor single-user systems, pretend nothing outside their own exists and 
> in general be a nightmare to administrators.

Ah, right.  The "I can't think of a technical argument, so I'll just add
in some uninformed flames at GNOME and KDE even though this argument
isn't really related to them" part.

Reply to: