On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:37 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 10:25 -0600, Ted Gould wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 10:26 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > Le vendredi 18 février 2011, à 22:26 -0600, Ted Gould a écrit : > > > > On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:52 -0600, Ted Gould wrote: > > > > > We would like to add "Unity" to the list of values allowed for > > > > > OnlyShowIn in the menu spec. While Unity is mostly GNOME based there > > > > > are cases where we'd like some desktop files and menus that GNOME does > > > > > not so the distinction is relevant. Patch attached (it's huge!) > > > > > > > > Haven't seen any objection on this, I'm guessing it's not because people > > > > are scared of my good looks. Sound good to everyone? > > > > > > We usually wait a week or so to make sure everyone has time to object > > > :-) > > > > I haven't seen any objection, just questions to this. Final call? > > I have voiced my objection to the general idea of 'desktop switch' > behaviour changes, but that's more of a complaint against > XDG_CURRENT_DESKTOP than against OnlyShowIn=Unity
I'm going to separate that out into another thread for discussion. (see
next mail)
> I will point out though that the OnlyShowIn values are interpreted by
> the session manager, ie gnome-session, not by the compositor. So, are
> you going to force gnome-session to call itself Unity ? Or do you ship
> your own session manager too ?
They're not only interpreted by the session manager. For instance in
the menus for which applications are shown to the user they are also
used. In this specific case we were looking at Desktop Actions.
No, we don't have any plans to make a session manager.
--Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
