Le Sun, May 12, 2013 at 04:22:56AM +0200, Sune Vuorela a écrit : > > > About the current patch, I think that the mention of "legacy debian > > additions to some legacy window managers" is not informative as it does not > > provide guidance. For the both menu systems, I would like to have > > explanations about 1) what is the scope of this menu, 2) what is the > > standard syntax for the entries, and 3) how packages should implement this. > > I think that for 2) and 3) pointing to the existing specs is the right thing > to do, not trying to summarize the specs. > > I'm not sure what you mean by 1)
Hi again, here are a few clarification in addition to the answer from Russ. I assume that, as for Gnome, it is possible for KDE to hide the whole Debian menu if wanted, so the question is about possible proliferation of FreeDestkop entries. For 1) it could be any directive such as: - packages should not include FreeDesktop entries for applications with no icon. (or if the icon is not transparent, scalable, etc.) - packages should include FreeDesktop entries for applications even if there is no icon. - packages should not use the HideIn key without sending an email to debian-devel (or any other list). - packages maintainer should accept patches adding HideIn keys to the FreeDesktop entries. For 2), in the case of FreeDesktop, it is the link to the spec. For 3), it is a brief explanation that the entries should be deposited in /usr/share/applications, and that the packages should not depend or recommend desktop-file-utils, nor call its functions in their postinst, because there are Dpkg triggers for this. If there are other or similar recommendations, for instance regarding the icon files, etc., please let us know. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130512030928.gd12...@falafel.plessy.net
