Re: Bug#37713: One more change to menu policy?
Edward Betts <edward@debian.org> writes:
> I know you this is exactly the opposite of what you want, but there
> was another on of the suggestions that I think is quite important,
> and others would agree. The restart Window Manager option is
> currently the name of the current Window Manager in the Window
> Manager menu. Most Window Managers have a Logout, Exit Window
> Manager, or End Session at the bottom of the menu, could we stick
> the restart Window Manager option just above that?
> Or is that the kind of thing that should be left until we have menu in the
> policy document?
I've thought about that one myself, and I do like the idea, but there
may be issues -- I'm not quite sure why some window managers have a
separate section for things like exit and restart while others don't,
and there may be reasons, so I'd like to hold off on this discussion
until we actually have a menu policy document.
> > The latest copy of this document can be found at
> > ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/doc/package-developer/menu_policy.txt
> > If you have a package which doesn't fit within the existing menu
> > heirarchy, please bring it up on the debian-devel mailing list.
> > If you have other proposals for changing the menu heirarchy, or
> > making other changes to menu policy, please bring it up on
> > debian-policy.
> Will there be any mention of there being a copy included in debian-policy and
> residing in /usr/doc/debian-policy?
There is no mention of the equivalent fact with the virtual package
list. I tried to model my proposal as much as possible on the virtual
package list. I think it's probably best to be consistent. I'm not
sure why the virtual package list section doesn't mention
/usr/doc/debian-policy/virtual_package_list.text, but it may be
because the copy on the ftp site is the canonical one.
> > Technical - technical stuff
> Sorry, what goes in technical? most of Debian is quite technical.
The heirarchy I copied verbatim from Joeyh's previous proposal, with
the two minor modifications I mentioned. So, Joeyh is the one to
ask. I hadn't noticed this, and, frankly, I'm not sure what it is or
if we need it. Joey?
> Another random thought, this one should defiantly be left until
> after menu has become policy, translations.
The code is all there, we just have to supply the appropriate files
and a selection mechanism. But yes, this is unrelated to my proposal.
It may even be more of a technical issue than a policy issue.
> I agree, the main aim must to move menu policy first, then worry about
> modifications, like those I have suggest above.
So is this a second? Would you rather wait till we clarify the
"Technical" section, and then second? Or no interest in seconding?
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: