Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
