On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 07:56:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > > > Wouter> So, I'm with Guillem on this one. > > > Wouter> But _forbidding_ maintainers who want to from shipping a > Wouter> second file, if that somehow makes the experience of menu > Wouter> users better than what the fdo menu would have given them? > Wouter> Sorry, but that seems petty and silly. > > OK. > Then why don't you build consensus behind a patch to do that? > The TC's decision can be changed by the normal policy process. > If you can get people to agree with a proposal that permits both > ..desktop and .menu files then you can replace the TC decision.
Per ยง4.1.4, Only through a 2:1 supermajority GR. Alternatively, it could also by replaced by the TC voting a second time on the subject, changing or clarifying its original decision (an outcome I would favour, but hey, I'm not a member of the TC). > For myself, I think that forcing a transition to .desktop will create a > longer Debian long-term. [assuming you meant 'better' rather than 'longer'] Yes, I agree with that, and I support that goal. By stating that the absense of a .desktop file for a graphical program should be considered a bug, and that the absense of support for the fdo menu in a window manager should be considered a bug as well, you would have forced such a transition, and that would/should have been enough. In contrast, the current TC decision goes one step further, and I think it goes a bridge too far. > I believe that the TC's approach provides a useful push for that in > this situation. I realize that it is a fairly forceful approach and > it's not something that Debian does often. Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why I think it's a bad decision. (for reference: I'm not angry here, just critical and sceptical) Regards, Wouter -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
