Russ Allbery wrote: > Loïc Minier <email@example.com> writes: > >> I can see how it would be useful to recommend calling dh_desktop as >> soon as you distribute .desktop files just like it would be more useful >> if we could inject any rules in packages via cdbs or the new "dh". >> However, this is really packaging style and using an extensible >> packaging style shouldn't be imposed by a checker tool like lintian; >> I'm not aware of any different dh_desktop usage which would justify >> raising a warning right now. >> >> Also, would we have to do more things on .desktop files, we would have >> more options to implement them without requiring dh_desktop (triggers >> come to mind). >> >> So not raising a lintian warning when dh_desktop isn't called on >> .desktop file would be more to my taste. > > Okay, that matches my reasoning. I'll remove that tag in the next version > of Lintian. Thank you very much! Maybe i missinterpreted your conclusion, but this what I get in one of my packages: desktop-mimetype-without-update-call /usr/share/applications/... Now that we have triggers, I really don't see the benefit of adding such a lintian warning. Imho we should get rid of dh_icon and dh_desktop completely and also any manual update-desktop-database calls, not recommend to add such a call (to potentially a *lot* of packages). Why should we update dozens if not hundreds of packages, if we can have the same effect much more elegantly and efficiently with file triggers. FWIW, I'd recommend to update desktop-file-utils (update-desktop-database), shared-mime-info (update-mime-database) and libgtk2.0-bin (update-icon-caches), to provide proper triggers support and as soon as that has happened even reverse the lintian check, i.e. if it finds any dh_icons / dh_desktop / update-desktop-database call, issue a warning with the recommendation to remove it. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature