On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 21:18 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > [snipped tons of directories] > > This looks rather unmaintainable from a lintian perspective unless there's > some (rarely-changing) standard that specifies those directories. If I'm > reading the implications of your message correctly, that list could change > arbitrarily with each release of the hicolor theme package. I don't see > any clean way that we could maintain this. See the Context table at the top if this: http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-naming-spec/icon-naming-spec-latest.html The hicolor standard theme is specified in this: http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html > (Also, this only applies to desktop files that don't give a full path to the icon, no?) Yah, which is most of them since it gives the icon system theme-ability. On my system, 32 desktop files out of 321 use an absolute icon path. IMO the ones that do are buggy since users cannot override the icons. Ones that use an extension like .png, .svg or .xpm in the Icon field are also buggy because users may want to provide their own versions in a different format. > > Also, when there is a package that contains an index.theme file, it > > would be good if lintian could validate the locations of images in the > > package against the Directories parameter in it. > > Hm, I guess. Parsing desktop files and trying to verify things in them is > really hard due to the lack of standardization of desktop files, but this > looks reasonably self-contained. Isn't this the standard for desktop files? http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ I'd also like to see a lintian info/warning when a menu file is installed in the package, but a .desktop file is not. The reason for this is that in that case, GNOME users will not have the application in their menu unless they turned the Debian menu on, since it is off by default. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part