Re: Debian packages and freedesktop.org (Gnome, KDE, etc) menu entries
Scripsit Bruce Sass <bsass@edmc.net>
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Bruce Sass <bsass@edmc.net>
> > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> > If you don't think the problem being discussed matters, why are you
> > participating in the discussion?
> The "problem" is real, the format used to convey the data is
> immaterial.
The format that should be used is what this thread is about
discussing. If you want to discuss something different, that is fine,
but it will be most practical if you do it in a different thread.
> > > the question should be, "what requires more work: adding features to
> > > the existing menu system, or changing the entire menu system."
> > Is there a difference? The changes being contemplated consist in
> > adding features, and any addition of features constitute a change.
> Yes. relatively small change vs. rewriting almost from scratch
Nobody has proposed "rewriting almost from scratch". Please avoid
strawman arguments; they convince nobody of anything and does nothing
to forward a resultion of the question.
> > > Users and developers are also resisting the proposal.
> > With few or no actual arguments about what would go bad.
> The pain is not worth the gain...
Nobody has put forward any description of which "pain" it is that you
speak.
> why should all the menu consumers need to redo their menu handling
It is not being proposed that they should.
> > Yes, but that does not buy KDE and Gnome users anything unless the
> > .desktop files are in the .debs for the applications they use. We're
> > discussions how to allow the .debs to contain them without duplication
> > of information and needless redundancy.
> Ok. How about doing it so the vast majority of menu consumers are not
> stuck with a needless rewrite.
They aren't.
> > The fraction of Debian users who use KDE and Gnome is probably less
> > than 90%, but I don't believe that it is small enough that it makes
> > sense to oppose on principle their getting the information they want.
> All users should be able to get what they want, including those who
> don't want KDE or Gnome... saddling them with bloated .desktop files
> does not achieve that.
Have you quantified the "bloat" you are speaking about? Can the same
argument not apply to any i18n effort?
> > Having a .desktop infrastructure is worth nothing if you dont have the
> > data it works with. KDE and Gnome users would certainly benefit from
> > having .desktop files in the .debs of the packages they use.
> Yes, but they would benefit in the same way if the KDE and Gnome
> specific bits were an addendum to the main menu data entries.
At the cost of a more complicated system, which would by nobody anything.
> Only KDE and Gnome users stand to benefit, so they should be the ones
> with the added burden.
Which burden?
> > Just how much more time and resources would it take to convert
> > .desktop files to Debian menu definitions? How often does it have to
> > be done?
> 1 or 2 hundred bytes vs. a couple to few thousand bytes _per_entry_;
I think we can spare that much memory while generating the menus.
> I would like to see:
> /usr/lib/menu/desktop
> /usr/lib/menu/desktop/gnome
> /usr/lib/menu/desktop/kde
But for some reason you're wildly opposed to the idea that .debs can
contain files that populate these directories. Why?
--
Henning Makholm "Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no,
all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere."
Reply to: