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

Re: Warm up discussion about desktop files [Was: Lintian check for missing desktop files?]

* Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> [110419 15:24]:
> >> 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
> >
> > What exceptions are there? Should there be a lintian warning about
> > those?
> A lintian warning doesn't make sense. it can't be automatically
> determined what a application do or does not, and what it works with.

People can still add lintion overrides. It makes sense for warnings for
things that are either common bugs or very uncommon situations.

For example a warning if there is not other .desktop with the same
command in the same package and the Category does not contain Settings.

> And the Gnome people seems to prefer adding OSI=Gnome, where others have
> a equivalent

As long as that will not change or there is no added .desktop with
NSI=Gnome in the same package I guess we can stop this discussion
and just keep requiring menu files, as that makes .desktop files simply
useless for classic window managers[1].

> > Well, I hope there is something similar, but getting this documentation
> > for users is very hard to get out of the xdg specs.
> There might be something similar written. I haven't looked for it. But
> there is various graphical applications for editing your menu, which is
> probably the preferred form for most our users.

Debian users are administrators. There might be a even a mojority of
people administrating only a personal computer, but being able to
globally config a menu is very important for the rest. Having to tell
each new user to "then with the window manager[1] you prefer see how
you configure menus in there, then add an item for this and delete the
menu for that then..." is the opposite of user-friendly in my eyes.

	Bernhard R. Link

[1] called something like "legacy X session types" in newspeak.

Reply to: