Re: Warm up discussion about desktop files [Was: Lintian check for missing desktop files?]
On 2011-04-19, Bernhard R. Link <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Sune Vuorela <firstname.lastname@example.org> [110419 09:41]:
>> On 2011-04-18, Bernhard R. Link <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Currently there is none of this. I think it makes no sense to discuss
>> > if things should have desktop files or whether it makes sense to
>> > remove the old working system.
>> what do you miss from the xdg specs?
> The "Desktop Entry Specification" mostly describes the format, with some
> very short sentences about Name, GenericName and Comment.
Name is the application name, as named by upstream
GenericName is a more generic name of the type of application
Comment is optional
GenericName=Integrated Development Environment
Comment could be something like
Comment=Launch a terminal window
Comment=Edit your text files
> Most of those "Categories" have a description of only one or two words
> (unless counting "a" then most have two or three).
I actually think the one or two words is enough to know where to put
things. It could of course use more words to look like chapter 3 in the
debian menu policy, but I think it is more words just to use more words.
> OnlyShowIn/NotShownIn only gives meaning. There is nothing that says
> when those should be used (or whether they may be used in Debian).
The OnlyShowIn/NotShowIn items should normally not be used, unless there
is a tight integration between a DE and the app itself. e.g. a tool to
configure the appearance of Plasma should probably have OnlyShowIn=KDE
I guess one can write something similar.
but basically it is syntax changes and
> And in terms of policy I miss a better description of the Categories,
> better rules how Name/GenericName/Comment should be written and when
> OnlyShowIn/NotShownIn are to be used.
Does my comments here clear it up for you? (then we can talk about
making docs out of it)