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" and "Savers"? Everybody knows what a term
> "screensaver" refers to. Locker could mean a drawer or a cupboard for
> native English speakers, though. Or maybe not.
>  Screen/Lockers
>  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
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
> 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.
I think games should be classified by the kind of interaction between
the computer(s) and the player(s).
Imagine a large red swirl here.