Re: Debian menu system update
* Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> [030601 19:05]:
> > 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
> /etc/menus/applications.menu.
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/menu/draft/menu-spec/menu-spec.html#MENU-FILE-FORMAT
Does this mean there simply is no such documentation?
> > 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.
Currently the main database for window managers or fvwm-modules is the
debian menu, as they are often selectable from a menu and there is no
difference in handling them and normal items. Do you suggest tweaking
the .desktop files, to contain them, too?
> > 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:
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec.html#BASIC-FORMAT
First of all because it is no menu entry, but a "desktop item". It
contains all sort of things like Mime-types and the like. And compare
the size of this file with /usr/share/doc/menu/html/ch3.html.
> > , 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".
I do not understand, what you want to say.
> > 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.
When I currently look in icewm-gnome, what is has in its KDE and Gnome
menus compared to what it has in its debian menu, I really have to doubt
that.
> > 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?
Because my argumentation is, that because of
a) most menu items will be written by us, as upstream has no
b) many of the rest would need edit anyway
c) any one should really looked into if it has to.
the
1) the old menu system no real overhead in b) and c)
while the using .desktop-files as native format will cause
2) making a) much more complicated.
3) discouraging c).
> > 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.
It is related. Heck, this specification even gives in the example the
Icon as .png-file. While using .xpm-only for menus is really
long-lasting standard, with no reason to stop this...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: