Am 07.12.2013 14:06, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
Am 06.12.2013 18:20, schrieb Alexander Rødseth:
* Arch Linux has vanilla packages, so we should try to avoid including
files that are hand-crafted by packagers
If the files are needed, we include them. It's that simple.
* It clutters the
Am 06.12.2013 18:20, schrieb Alexander Rødseth:
* Arch Linux has vanilla packages, so we should try to avoid including
files that are hand-crafted by packagers
If the files are needed, we include them. It's that simple.
* It clutters the repository
One or two extra files per package is not a
Hi Allan,
Thanks for your opinion on this. I agree with your comments and conclusion.
2013/12/7 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org:
There is no need to do anything here apart from packages that do not
provide a .desktop file that should need one added.
In light of all this, would it be okay if
Hi Gaetan,
2013/12/7 Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org:
You missed most of my points. That's okay.
Ditto.
Could you explain to me why an application needs a desktop file when
nobody on earth cares whether it has one or not?
It is odd to be asked to explain a point of view that I never
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This is the current situation:
You already know my opinion on this, but for the record I sum it up here, too:
* I'm against forcing everyone to generate desktop files (or removing
them, I saw that someone
[2013-12-07 20:46:26 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
If nobody on earth cares whether an application has a desktop file, I
don't think it needs one either.
Great. So we can stop this nonsense.
Your objection is noted.
Thank you mister chairman.
--
Gaetan
Hi Gaetan,
2013/12/7 Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org:
[2013-12-07 20:46:26 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
If nobody on earth cares whether an application has a desktop file, I
don't think it needs one either.
Great. So we can stop this nonsense.
Your assumption that nobody on earth cares
Hi,
This is the current situation:
* Several packages in [community] (and maybe one package in [extra])
includes .desktop files
* There is a 2 years, 8 months and 14 days old bug report, opened by
Thomas Dziedzic, that opens with a few well chosen words, and is
followed by a lengthy discussion:
[2013-12-06 18:15:36 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
I think .desktop files should ideally be provided by upstream. But for
cases where they are not currently being provided, we should provide
them.
Sure. That's exactly like service files, or rc.d files before that.
Nothing new here.
Regardless of
On 06.12.2013 18:56, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
P.S. Why did you separately send this to arch-general? Now the
discussion will be split over two mailing lists...
I mentioned on IRC that not everyone reads arch-general when I saw the
mail there and encouraged him to post to arch-dev-public, I didn't
Hi,
2013/12/6 Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org:
Regardless of if it is correct that upstream should provide the
.desktop files or not, the current plan is not working. TUs and devs
are slow at reporting this as bugs and upstream are slow at
responding. At the current rate, this will take
Well,
You missed most of my points. That's okay. Let's focus on:
[2013-12-06 21:08:30 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
2013/12/6 Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org:
Packages for whom nobody has yet bothered to write a desktop file just
have no need for one...
I disagree with this too. I think
12 matches
Mail list logo
