Le vendredi 04 mars 2011 à 12:30 +0000, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 09:04 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le jeudi 03 mars 2011 à 22:56 +0000, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > > > Surely they can filter out entries with Terminal: true? > > > > Yeah sure, and leave users without the possibility to add a launcher for > > a terminal application? > > You can surely distinguish user-added launchers from package-provided > launchers.
Not easily. Freedesktop specifies that there is a list of directories in which to search, and it doesn’t sound right (nor simple) to make exceptions based on pathnames. > > The correct solution is to use NoDisplay=true for such applications. > > This way they appear in the menu editor and can be enabled, but are not > > displayed in the menu by default. > > Could you arrange to interpret Terminal=true as NoDisplay=true, then? Doing that would mean it wouldn’t be possible to enable the application in the menu editor. > I'm just thinking that this policy of excluding terminal applications > may not be appropriate for every desktop environment / window manager. > (In particular, those without a menu editor that would allow overriding > it.) A possibility (for GNOME) would be to change gnome-menus-blacklist to automatically exclude Terminal=true entries, but that would also make it slower. But after all, this script is already the place where we deal with uncooperative maintainers and their useless XDG menu entries. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `- -- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299242983.404.101.camel@meh
