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

Common Menu System (was: PROPOSAL: a common menu system)


I'd like to know if there had been any conclusions drawn by the
discussion done in May last year:
-> http://lists.debian.org/lsb-spec/2000/lsb-spec-200005/msg00055.html

I think we still need such a menu system which should be defined in LSB.

I think we have still the two systems:
- Debian Menu (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu.html/)
- .desktop file

LSB should define the
a) location of the files
b) the format (desktop-entry-spec looks good and is X-tenable)
c) the tool to be called after something has changed to regernerate the
menu files for the WM
d) optional: The default categories for the WM, this would be a nice
starter, but it is not necessary (makes localisation easier)

For me (I've to admit to come from SuSELinux/KDE and just started
building debs) the .desktop system seems to be better suited, but this
is personal taste.

As a system administrator and ISV I'd really like to have only one
powerful system instead of $n$ (or two).

The .desktop presently supports almost everything needed/present in the
debian menu system, maybe with these exeptions:
- needs=text|X11|vc|vm (text: runs in console, X11:program, vc runs only
in console,wm:this starts another windowmanager). This is a bit more
advanced than "Terminal"(bool) in .desktop
- Fvwm hooks (more fvwm specific thus more powerful)

Proposals for enhancement of the file:
- Implementing the needs system the "wm" part is interesting, (the X11
vs text is equivalent to Terminal)
- Exclusion/Inclusion of WM (partly supported by susewm)
- UID tag - ?
  Show this entry only when root (based on name since the uids are not
defined in LSB)
- Needs su or root: Add a program to su before executing (kdesu, xterm
-c 'su ...', etc.)

With warm regards and the hope that we finally get some (one!) standard,

This above all: To thine own self be true / And it must follow as
the night the day / Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Reply to: