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

Re: Is menu orphaned?

Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> writes:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Bill Allombert wrote:

>> The menu entry format is not documented in the menu policy, so this
>> discard #447389.

> Well, you are right that policy should not _describe_ the menu format,
> but policy should definitely _mention_ that there are at least two formats
> and should give an _advise_ which to use.  I tend to reopen the bug
> (depending from the outcome of this discussion).

Why?  Policy doesn't say anything at all about the format of menu files
now, so unless you're proposing adding something about the format to
Policy, it doesn't make any sense to say this there.  And I don't see what
would be gained by adding that to Policy.

> Please don't blame me for drawing wrong conclusions from perfectly
> lacking information.  There was an announcement of a new format and
> I tend to assume that a new thing replaces the old one and we should
> start informing people about this fact.

And you've now been told that you drew conclusions that weren't intended.

>  2. I want to have one single menu format if there is no strong
>     reason to support more than one (feelings are no reasons).

This seems to be the real point of disagreement.  Currently there isn't
any recommended format; people can use whichever one they choose.  I think
that's the core of what you're disagreeing with.

Personally, that doesn't bother me, but if you build a consensus around
the idea that there should only be one format, I'm happy to go along with
that consensus.

>  3. I want dh_make to generate files of the _suggested_ format.
>     (Your announcement sounded kind of a suggestion for menu-2
>     and thus I felt my bug report would be reasonable.)
>  4. I want lintian report (just report, not as an error) that
>     something else than the suggested format is used.

The bug report asking for 4 is hence premature until 2 has been decided.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: