On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 10:10, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030530 19:45]: > > What do you mean "consistent concept overall"? Using the freedesktop > > standards makes things more consistent, not less. > > Then please point to a documentation, how to overwrite the menus > installed with the packages as admin or other things like this.
Basically you would edit the system .menu file, say /etc/menus/applications.menu. http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/menu/draft/menu-spec/menu-spec.html#MENU-FILE-FORMAT > We will need to add some way to get windowmangers and modules > to existing windowmanagers handled. No window managers should have to change. We will probably have to update their /etc/menu-methods/foo though. > The most of the complexity is not what and how to do things, but to see > what needs to be done. A classical menu item is easy to do and well > documented. Checking a .dektop-file, if it is good enough to be included > it not so easy And why is that? The .desktop format is quite well documented: http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec.html#BASIC-FORMAT > , but easy to miss looking into it at all. The idea is that we switch to .desktop as our native format as a first step. That way you can't "miss looking into it at all". > If it is translated upstream and the name is usable, then there is no > problem in taking the translations. If it is not, it has to be done > anyway. Yes, but the point is that the former case will be the vast majority. > I strongly believe the menu is something to be maintained. I strongly believe that too. > Debian is > about quality and Debian is the only one to include almost any piece > of free software. We cannot let slip in whatever any upstream thinks > is the best place for its items. No kidding. Why do you keep repeating this, when I have answered that we can easily make whatever edits are required? > Let me come back to my directory example. Some time ago people switching > to Debian had to learn headers are in /usr/include and nothing installed > by debian is in /opt. I did not think it was a bad things and others > following have showed it was the right way. But your example is a straw man, because all those paths are specified by another non-Debian-specific standard (the FHS). Just like the FHS, the Desktop Menu standard will save administrators time. > (Next step is abolishing > update-alternative, just another things people have to learn...) Sigh. > It was designed to cope the needs of KDE and GNOME. These are well known > to favor single-user systems, pretend nothing outside their own exists and > in general be a nightmare to administrators. Ah, right. The "I can't think of a technical argument, so I'll just add in some uninformed flames at GNOME and KDE even though this argument isn't really related to them" part.
