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

Re: Brief descriptions in menu entries

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 04:40:56PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > Chris Cheny wrote:
> > > > Why not just convert the Debian menu system over to the freedesktop
> > > > standard after sarge is released? Gnome, and KDE (and probably others)
> > > > already use it. It takes care of this problems and several others,
> > > > besides making the Debian menu files standard format.
> > >
> > > I rather like the idea of this.  Though of course the people who need to
> > > be convinced are the ones writing menu-methods files for systems that
> > > don't use this standard. :)
> >
> > I like it, although it is a bit heavy handed.
> >
> >
> > on one hand:
> > Is "this problem" really a problem that warrants rewriting the menu
> > system, and the menu-methods, and the menu entries.  The existing
> > system should create submenues as required, and those with only one or
> > two of a particular type of app (freedesktop's GenericName) that don't
> > know what (say) apps->net->konqueror is can do...
> There are fewer than 45 menu-methods in total. Converting them to use
> the new standard shouldn't be that hard. However, there are many menu
> entry files, many of them could be dropped entirely due to them being
> conversions of .desktop files already (ie all the Gnome and KDE ones).

It is not so much a matter of "hard" as it is a bother for little or
no gain.  Do you you mean `conversions to .desktop files'... getting
basic .desktop files for everything with a menu entry is pretty close
to trivial.

> Also by converting to the new standard the menu entry files could/should
> be sent to upstreams so that everyone could benefit by the menu files
> since they would no longer be Debian specific. This would also further
> i18n desktop support since the new standard supports it and upstreams
> could more easily collect the translations from its wider base of users.

None of that is contingent on Debian converting to the freedesktop
standard; the current, generated, .desktop files could be sent
upstream.  If that 's what you want to do.

I don't think upstream should have to worry about menu entries,
that is up to those building the menues.

> > ~$ man konqueror
> real documentation, but they haven't been written for all binaries yet.

Point was, it is not necessary to convert Debian to accomplish what
the GenericName proposal wants.  IMO it would be better to have KDE
improve its menu handling... integrate with the existing system; and
have an RMB on an item pop up a menu with actions for viewing the apps
docs, looking at the dpkg and apt views of the package the app comes
from, looking at the docs of the package, etc.

> > on the other hand:
> > It would sure be nice if I could override the system wide entries and
> > get nice KDE menues.  i.e., the standard menu sucks because it
> > can't/doesn't communicate enough info to KDE, KDE's menues suck
> > because I can't do a system-wide replacement of an entry (without it
> > getting overwritten next upgrade).
> If I remember correctly there are ways to override menu entries with the
> new freedesktop standard. However, its not in the version currently in
> sid.

or the KDE menu-method(s) could get smarter and more flexible...
Why not adopt a convention for dealing with menu entry fragments so a
menu-method has somewhere to look for additional data.

> > This would open up the possibility for (say) KDE to actually
> > integrate its menues with the system instead of dumping them into
> > /usr then tacking on the Debian menues.
> With KDE 3.2 both Gnome and KDE menus should be fairly well integrated.
> I haven't actually looked at KDE 3.2 to see how this works out but in
> theory it should just work. BTW KDE 3.2 is due out early in Dec.

Great, but what does that mean and how does it help KDE and Gnome
menues integrate with the system?

Who do you see being the logical distributor of menu entries:
upstream, the DE/WM's, or the distro?  How about practically?

> Finally, the best reason to convert is because standards are good m'kay. ;)

Standards adopted by convention are good, standards that are pushed
often most benefit those doing the pushing.  In this case KDE and
Gnome benefit most and most everyone else has some work to do... for
what, to process options they don't support.

I would much rather see Debian adopt an efficient, even if more
complex, system than a one size fits all standard solution which would
appear bloated to most of its users.

- Bruce

Reply to: