Re: Lintian check for missing desktop files?
On Fri, Mar 04 2011, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:27:07PM -0800, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > (isn't it only icewm and ratpoison and blackbox we might 'lose' by
>> > simply killing the debian menu)
>>
>> And fvwm,
>
> I was a fan of fvwm for years and I even have configured my xfce with
> fvwm keycodes to have the same handling. However, if you ask me the
> typical fvwm user (if something like this exists at all) is most
> probably ignoring the menu and has rather configured his environment
> to fire up applications via key codes or fires up an xterm and types
> the command for an application. So while I do not really want to
I would be surprised if that were indeed the case. If you look
at the exemplar configuration file providedat fvwm.org, there is
extensive use of menus -- and for non debian folk, yes, they tend to
manually hard code application paths in menus; for Debian folks
upstream even ships the default system.fvwm2rc with:
Test (f /etc/X11/fvwm/menudefs.hook) + "Debian Menu" Popup /Debian
Test (f /etc/X11/fvwm/menudefs.hook) + "Re-read System Menu" Read "/etc/X11/fvwm/menudefs.hook"
Test (f /etc/X11/fvwm/menudefs.hook) + "Update My Debian Menu" PipeRead 'update-menus && echo "Read $./menudefs.hook"'
> loose fvwm menu in case there might be some constraints in a potential
> to be written desktop2menu I would not really regard this issue as
> urgent enough to stop what we would gain with overall proper desktop
> files.
That is a decision that the project can of course make, though I
think that would be a pity, and hope it shall not come to that.
Could you please remind me why, given that we currently have a
large number of menu files, that a menu2xdg script is not being
considered as the better path moving forward?
manoj
--
The difference between a career and a job is about 20 hours a week.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Reply to: