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

Re: Debian Menu policy leads to confusion

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Linas Zvirblis wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> >This is icons and translations. Both are going to be handled specially
> >and I won't be able to accept their addition until the special way is 
> >implemented. I won't repeat the detail in this thread, but feel free
> >to ask for them if you cannot find them in the archive.
> Does it mean that this is being worked on? I have found quite a bit of 
> posts regarding this issue, but most date back a couple of years. 
> Unfortunately, I do not know what exactly should I be looking for.

It is not really worked on.
The icon thread is at:

The translation thread is at:

I will accept other solutions provide they are manageable in practice.

> >I don't know. Properly they are "terminal emulators".
> Yes, that probably is the most correct term, but not the most 
> appropriate one in this case. If it was Applications > Terminal 
> Emulators, that would be fine. But this is a top level entry, so when I 
> select it, I expect an emulated terminal. Not some specific application, 
> but simply a command line prompt. Hence "Terminals".

Maybe 'Graphical terminals' ?

> On the other hand, this might mean that it should not be a top level 
> section. Maybe moving them to Applications is actually a good idea? We 
> could then have a single top level entry called "Terminal" that would 
> execute x-terminal-emulator.

Well I see the Terminal entry as a window-manager specific
configuration, so it does not belong in Debian menu.

> >I would take the opportunuity to rename the Screen hierarchy something
> >sane ("lock" and "save" meanings are not obvious).
> How about "Lockers"[1] and "Savers"[2]? Everybody knows what a term 
> "screensaver" refers to. Locker could mean a drawer or a cupboard for 
> native English speakers, though. Or maybe not.
> [1] Screen/Lockers
> [2] Screen/Savers

It is clearer than Lock and Save.

> >I don't know. The root window background is almost the only thing that 
> >can be customisedindepdendently of the wm/desktop.
> Apart from xsetroot (that I bet nobody uses), these use "Root-window":
> * xphoon - sets the root window to a picture of the moon
> * xplanet - render images of the earth
> * chbg - tool for changing the desktop background image in X11
> * root-portal - Monitors the system and displays the results on the desktop
> * chameleon - Application for putting pictures or color in the root window
> * wallp - GTK+ and Imlib based app for periodically updating root of X
> The question is, do they really deserve a separate section? (8 entries 
> in total) The ability to draw to root window does not indicate the 
> purpose of an application. Many can do that. Many do. Most are in 
> different sections.

There a bit related to bug #162849. They are application that do not 
open windows. 
Root-window should be reserved to menu entries (not programs) which sole
purpose is to modify the Root-window. But it is not clear there are 
enough of them to warrant a subsection.

> >I think they should go in a separate section, but I find hard to find
> >the Modules subsection (on my laptop) because it is drowned under 45
> >window-managers entries.  There are others wm-specific menu entries that
> >often end up in the Window Managers sections and suffer the same
> >problem.
> Maybe allow WM specific top level entries? Something like 
> "Configuration" in Fluxbox root menu. These could be named after WM that 
> uses them (for example "FVWM"), or simply "Modules". A person running a 
> WM that uses modules can be expected to know what they are.

In fact, they are already allowed. However this should not prevent us
to improve the recommandation.

> >>I was wondering if it is fine to make "Apps/System/Language-Environment" 
> >>official? It is used only by language-env, but creates 19 entries and 
> >>seems to be quite popular according to popcon.
> >
> >Maybe it is better to reserve it to language-env.  But of course it
> >should still be translated.
> Included this in draft:
>  System/Language Environment [was:Language-Environment]
>  This section is reserved to language-env as a special case.
> By the way, I posted "Games" draft to pkg-games-devel, as I find it hard 
> to work on. From all the changes I made, I am only certain about 
> renaming "Tetris-like" to "Blocks". "Tetris" is a trademark and should 
> not be used.
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-February/000292.html

I think games should be classified by the kind of interaction between
the computer(s) and the player(s).

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: