On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:22 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007, Charles Plessy wrote: > > am I wrong or one can have foo.png in foo.desktop, and foo.xpm in > > foo.menu? If upstream does not provide an xpm icon, the "convert" > > command of the imagemagick package can easily create one at build time. > > My point is that I shouldn't have to maintain both, or to run convert > each time this is necessary. Unless I'm confused, this is what makefiles are for. How much trouble is it to set it up, which must only be done once? > "Reinventing the wheel" was perhaps not the best way to describe the > problem; I wanted to point out that the Debian meny system has > antediluvian requirements and duplicates the functionality of the GNOME > menu for me. I suggested the Debian menu system would handle or import > the data from the .desktop files instead of requiring me to do it > manually. This does not excuse you, as a Debian maintainer, from conforming to the Debian menu policy, which is designed for more than just GNOME. I agree completely that something better could be found to integrate them, but that's not at all the same question. A Debian maintainer's job is *not* just to package things the way upstream normally does, and refuse to do anything more. > No, but in some use cases they are mutually exclusive. The Debian menu > system is completely useless to me, and I expect to most GNOME and KDE > users. I'm not saying we should drop it since I can't claim it's > useless for everybody. I am saying that the fact it is useless to me > and to most of the users of the GNOME packages I maintain doesn't call > for a good maintenance of the menu entries of these packages; and I am > proposing technical ways to solve this. Supposedly a gnome program will run under KDE. Right? How will a KDE user find it, if not through the Debian menu system? Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part