On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 05:50:38PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I see Keith has committed a draft to git. As discussed, I disagree > > with this approach. This amounts to nonconsensually abolishing > > someone's work when it is still being maintained, and the global cost > > is minimal. > > My feelings on this draft are mixed. > > On the one hand, I happen to agree with the position that the > categorisation system in .desktop files (and X-Show-In etc.) should be > able to cover the bulk of the practical requirements of the trad menu > system: > > * There's no reason that "has a .desktop file" should imply "shows up > in modern desktop environments", and so I think that the question of > coverage is to some extent a red herring; the systems have different > coverage because they've always had different coverage, not because > the .desktop format is inherently unable to meet the needs of trad > menu consumers. > > * We might have to look into the presentation of menu item names, > although Name / GenericName offers some support for the different > names that people are likely to want, and if all else fails the > .desktop file format does have extension mechanisms. > > I would be very happy to see additional .desktop files being added to > packages with suitable categorisation such that they don't need to > interfere with how the maintainers of modern DEs want to present their > desktops, so that menu-xdg (or similar) can supplant the current menu > system with negligible loss of functionality for users of trad menus. I > think this would make a great project for people interested in unifying > the two worlds a bit more, which doesn't even have to step on anyone's > toes. Perhaps for instance it would be a good project for Debian's > Google Summer of Code efforts. > > On the other hand, Keith's draft seems highly aspirational to me. While > it seems to me to be broadly the right kind of long-term technical > direction, there is an awful lot of work in there for people who want > something like trad menus which is being glossed over. > > > So, I prefer Ian's position in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741573#355 for the > purposes of how the policy text should remain for the time being, and in > terms of the philosophy of not ripping out work from under people's > feet. I disagree with its argument that it follows directly from the > two sets of competing requirements that we must have these two file > formats. I prefer Keith's position as a long-term direction, but agree > with Ian that it is lacking an awful lot of transitional thought, and > feel that it has a lot of things-should-be-done without it being clear > who will do them. > > > Thirdly, IMO the resolution needs to acknowledge (in the "whereas" > > section) that consuming a trad Debian menu entry is simpler and easier > > than consuming a .desktop file. > > I think this is really overstated. .desktop files are in a > long-standing and popular basic file format for which plenty of parsing > libraries in various languages exist, so you can get to the point of > having a parsed data structure trivially. In contrast the menu entry > format is a bespoke thing. While the .desktop file format has more > bells and whistles, many of them can be ignored if you don't support > whatever it is. I don't think it's worth emphasising ease of > consumption either way. I believe the major aspect of .desktop files that makes them harder is the icon handling. Perhaps debian policy should instruct that a certain icon size must always be available in a particular format (e.g. 32x32 png) so that WMs do not have to handle so many corner cases in that area. Best, -- Cameron Norman
