Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +pending

Hello Didier,

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:22:28AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> I now gathered some old memories and remembered that there was indeed a bug 
> about this that got stalled: #707851 (which was the TC bug). See from message 
> #475 (September 2015), where I tried to push a wording quite similar to yours 
> to Policy:
> 
> > +Applications that are registred in the desktop menu shall not also
> > +provide a Debian menu file for the same application.
> [...]
> So… I'm fine with your wording, but thought it'd be useful to point at the 
> previous discussion about this very subject.

Thank you for digging this up!

I have no desire to argue in favour of either your patch or mine, but
since mine has been okayed by three TC members in this bug, in the
interests of getting this bug closed, I've gone ahead and applied it.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[David Bremner]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml
> index 3daa532..934a85b 100644
> --- a/policy.xml
> +++ b/policy.xml
> @@ -8990,14 +8990,8 @@ Reloading description 
> configuration...done.
>  receive extra contributions such as translations.
>
>
> -Packages can, to be compatible with Debian additions to some
> -window managers that do not support the FreeDesktop standard, also
> -provide a Debian menu file, following the
> -Debian menu policy, which can be found in the
> -menu-policy files in the
> -debian-policy package.  It is also available
> -from the Debian web mirrors at  -
> url="https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/;>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/.
> +If a package installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries, it must
> +not also install a Debian menu entry.
>
>  
>
> -- 
> Sean Whitton

I looked at the older version from Didier, and this one. Both ok for me,
but I have a slight preference for the shorter version. So consider
Sean's proposal seconded.

d


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 3 août 2017, 08.53:09 h CEST Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit :
> Le mardi, 1 août 2017, 11.01:10 h CEST Sean Whitton a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:55:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > We also approved the decision that packages should not include both a
> > > menu file and a desktop file.
> > 
> > For reference, Policy currently says that packages should include a
> > desktop file, and may also include a menu file for the sake of old
> > window managers.
> > > The action to draft language for that has stalled in the policy
> > > process.
> > 
> > Is there a policy bug that got stalled?  If not, maybe this bug should
> > just be reassigned to policy?

I now gathered some old memories and remembered that there was indeed a bug 
about this that got stalled: #707851 (which was the TC bug). See from message 
#475 (September 2015), where I tried to push a wording quite similar to yours 
to Policy:

> +Applications that are registred in the desktop menu shall not also
> +provide a Debian menu file for the same application.

So https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2015/09/msg00024.html is the start 
of the thread that stalled.

I read the arguments back then as critics against the TC decision itself, not 
discussions about the wording. My argument back then (and it has not changed) 
is that now that the TC decision is made, it should find it's way into the 
Policy.

So… I'm fine with your wording, but thought it'd be useful to point at the 
previous discussion about this very subject.

Cheers,
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Philip Hands]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>> P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional
>> change:
>> 
>>   Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow
>>   emphasised, to make it clear that there is a reference back to the
>>   earlier definition?
>> 
>> If you meant to get rid of that, no problem.
>
> Ah, sorry, I see what you mean now.
>
> I think it makes sense to get rid of it: IME, when emphasis is used in
> defining a term, it is not repeated when the term is later used.
>
> Do I have your approval for the patch, with the plural/singular fixed?

Yes, that's fine with me.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Sean Whitton]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional
> change:
> 
>   Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow
>   emphasised, to make it clear that there is a reference back to the
>   earlier definition?
> 
> If you meant to get rid of that, no problem.

Ah, sorry, I see what you mean now.

I think it makes sense to get rid of it: IME, when emphasis is used in
defining a term, it is not repeated when the term is later used.

Do I have your approval for the patch, with the plural/singular fixed?

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Sean Whitton]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> You appear to have a singular/plural mismatch with:
> 
>   installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries
> 
> I guess that should instead be:
> 
>   installs FreeDesktop desktop entries
> 
> (or perhaps it should be singular throughout, I'm not sure)

Ooops, I meant singular throughout.

> P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional
> change:
> 
>   Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow
>   emphasised, to make it clear that there is a reference back to the
>   earlier definition?
> 
> If you meant to get rid of that, no problem.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you referring to the paragraph I
deleted?

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Philip Hands]

Hi Sean,

Sean Whitton  writes:

> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello tech-ctte,
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> So yes, point 2 corresponds to your:
>> > - delete that paragraph
>> > - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
>> >   be no menu file"
>> [...]
>> That said, now that thanks to new forces, the process seems vivid and strong 
>> again, it does indeed make sense to reassign that to Policy. I'm hereby 
>> doing 
>> this, marking the TC as "affected". We'd still be happy to help on the 
>> wording, ideally during DebConf!
>
> Here is my proposed patch to policy.  Since the TC has made a decision,
> it doesn't make sense to seek seconds for this change, in the usual way.
> So instead I'd like to see "seconds" from at least three TC members
> confirming that this patch is sufficient to close this bug:
>
> diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml
> index 3daa532..934a85b 100644
> --- a/policy.xml
> +++ b/policy.xml
> @@ -8990,14 +8990,8 @@ Reloading description 
> configuration...done.
>  receive extra contributions such as translations.
>
>
> -Packages can, to be compatible with Debian additions to some
> -window managers that do not support the FreeDesktop standard, also
> -provide a Debian menu file, following the
> -Debian menu policy, which can be found in the
> -menu-policy files in the
> -debian-policy package.  It is also available
> -from the Debian web mirrors at  -
> url="https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/;>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/.
> +If a package installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries, it must
> +not also install a Debian menu entry.

You appear to have a singular/plural mismatch with:

  installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries

I guess that should instead be:

  installs FreeDesktop desktop entries

(or perhaps it should be singular throughout, I'm not sure)

Cheers, Phil.

P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional
change:

  Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow
  emphasised, to make it clear that there is a reference back to the
  earlier definition?

If you meant to get rid of that, no problem.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +patch

Hello tech-ctte,

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> So yes, point 2 corresponds to your:
> > - delete that paragraph
> > - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
> >   be no menu file"
> [...]
> That said, now that thanks to new forces, the process seems vivid and strong 
> again, it does indeed make sense to reassign that to Policy. I'm hereby doing 
> this, marking the TC as "affected". We'd still be happy to help on the 
> wording, ideally during DebConf!

Here is my proposed patch to policy.  Since the TC has made a decision,
it doesn't make sense to seek seconds for this change, in the usual way.
So instead I'd like to see "seconds" from at least three TC members
confirming that this patch is sufficient to close this bug:

diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml
index 3daa532..934a85b 100644
--- a/policy.xml
+++ b/policy.xml
@@ -8990,14 +8990,8 @@ Reloading description 
configuration...done.
 receive extra contributions such as translations.
   
   
-Packages can, to be compatible with Debian additions to some
-window managers that do not support the FreeDesktop standard, also
-provide a Debian menu file, following the
-Debian menu policy, which can be found in the
-menu-policy files in the
-debian-policy package.  It is also available
-from the Debian web mirrors at https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/;>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/.
+If a package installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries, it must
+not also install a Debian menu entry.
   
 

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Control: reassign -1 debian-policy 4.0.0.4
Control: affects -1 + tech-ctte

Hi Sean,

Le mardi, 1 août 2017, 11.01:10 h CEST Sean Whitton a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:55:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > We also approved the decision that packages should not include both a
> > menu file and a desktop file.
> 
> For reference, Policy currently says that packages should include a
> desktop file, and may also include a menu file for the sake of old
> window managers.
> 
> So the change that was approved is:

For reference, the TC decision was announced on d-d-announce:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/09/msg0.html

And, as far as I could tell, although the specific commit has made its way into 
Policy, point 2 of the TC decision still needs wording:
>2. In addition to those changes, the Technical Committee resolves
>   that packages providing a .desktop file shall not also provide a
>   menu file for the same application.

So yes, point 2 corresponds to your:
> - delete that paragraph
> - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
>   be no menu file"

Point 3 & 4 are up to the maintainers of 'menu'; point 5 & 6 just state where 
in policy the fine-tuning of the menu integration should happen.

> This is not strictly equivalent to "packages should not include both a
> menu file and a desktop file", but given that we have deprecated menu
> files, it seems like the right way to reflect the change.

At the risk of sounding procedural, "right way" or not, the TC has used its 
power under §6.1.1 and set policy for that change.

> > The action to draft language for that has stalled in the policy
> > process.
> 
> Is there a policy bug that got stalled?  If not, maybe this bug should
> just be reassigned to policy?

We filed that bug at times when the policy team seemed unable to get to that 
subject on its own; we also set to work on specific wording ever since (without 
success), and finally decided to assign some of us to work on that during 
DebConf17.

That said, now that thanks to new forces, the process seems vivid and strong 
again, it does indeed make sense to reassign that to Policy. I'm hereby doing 
this, marking the TC as "affected". We'd still be happy to help on the 
wording, ideally during DebConf!

Many thanks in advance for your energy to get this to closure!

Cheers,
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Processed: Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> reassign -1 debian-policy 4.0.0.4
Bug #839172 [tech-ctte] TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected 
yet
Bug reassigned from package 'tech-ctte' to 'debian-policy'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #839172 to the same values 
previously set
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #839172 to the same values 
previously set
Bug #839172 [debian-policy] TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not 
reflected yet
Marked as found in versions debian-policy/4.0.0.4.
> affects -1 + tech-ctte
Bug #839172 [debian-policy] TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not 
reflected yet
Added indication that 839172 affects tech-ctte

-- 
839172: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839172
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Sam,

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:55:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> We also approved the decision that packages should not include both a
> menu file and a desktop file.

For reference, Policy currently says that packages should include a
desktop file, and may also include a menu file for the sake of old
window managers.

So the change that was approved is:

- delete that paragraph

- add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
  be no menu file"

This is not strictly equivalent to "packages should not include both a
menu file and a desktop file", but given that we have deprecated menu
files, it seems like the right way to reflect the change.

> The action to draft language for that has stalled in the policy
> process.

Is there a policy bug that got stalled?  If not, maybe this bug should
just be reassigned to policy?

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

[Sam Hartman]

package: tech-ctte
In #741573, the TC produced a two-part decision.
We approved specific wording regarding .desktop policy.  That was folded
into a policy NMU.

We also approved the decision that packages should not include both a
menu file and a desktop file.

The action to draft language for that has stalled in the policy process.

At the August, 2015 meeting, we agreed to champion our decision in the
policy process and propose specific language.
Also at that meeting we agreed to prioritize that work below helping out
with an init system policy.