Bug#314254: openoffice.org: Menu item in wrong category
I want to add some bits to this bug report. I wouldn't tag these extra
infos/wishlist items as important.
KDE, GNOME and even XFCE4 (4.2) in Sid follow the freedesktop.org
specifications [1]. So I would suggest the following categories for
OO.o .desktop files:
/usr/share/applications/ooo645calc.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Office;Spreadsheet;
/usr/share/applications/ooo645draw.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Graphics;2DGraphics; or
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Office;
/usr/share/applications/ooo645impress.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Office;Presentation;
/usr/share/applications/ooo645math.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Office;
/usr/share/applications/ooo645printeradmin.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Settings;HardwareSettings;
(would also fix the bug originally reported)
/usr/share/applications/ooo645template.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Office;
/usr/share/applications/ooo645web.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Development;WebDevelopment;
/usr/share/applications/ooo645writer.desktop
Categories=GTK;Gnome;Office;WordProcessor;
If you add 'Application;' at the end of each Categories-line, these
desktop files will also be compatible with older GNOME versions
(possible to use it in upstream).
Further the package installs .desktop files
into /usr/share/applnk/OpenOffice.org1.1, which is not intended to be a
desktop-directory (see /usr/share/desktop-directories) and which leads
to an extra (needless) directory "OpenOffice.org1.1" in XFCE4's system
menu. I would suggest two possibilities:
(1) Move the .desktop-files into /usr/share/applink/<fitting-directory>;
e.g. calc, writer, .. into /usr/share/applink/Office; web
into /usr/share/applink/Development; ...
(2) Move adjusted .desktop files to /usr/share/applications/kde. I don't
have a KDE system, so I cannot give you a working solution. It seems,
that even XFCE4 and GNOME read both /usr/share/applications
and /usr/share/applications/kde. But I don't know, what KDE reads.
[1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: