On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:29:44 + Ian Jackson
wrote:
> The traditional Debian menu system (mostly done by Bill Alombert) has
> been providing menu entries for bc and dc and everything for years.
> That is what its users expect. It is what users like Matthew Vernon
> want:
> https://bugs.debia
Dear TC,
I would like to react to Ian's message, that uses words like "deliberate
dismantling" that can be interpreted as if the misbehaviour is on my side, and
will add a remark on the fact that Policy maintainers have no "veto" in
contrary to what seemed implied in November's TC meeting on IRC.
Keith Packard writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Yeah, there are a lot of inappropriate entries in my /usr/share/menu
> directory. Can we fix policy to weed these out? The current
> wording in §9.6:
>
> All packages that provide applications th
Le Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:25:41PM -0700, Keith Packard a écrit :
>
> I think this does demonstrate that we could, with little effort, allow
> applications to ship only .desktop files and have the menu package take
> those and generate menu files for other systems.
Hi Keith,
your approach is lau
Russ Allbery writes:
> Isn't this the tool that Sune wrote and mentioned earlier in this bug as
> being incomplete and primarily useful for generating a template that
> requires subsequent work?
The only two gaps I saw were in the assignment of sections from the
Categories in the .desktop file,
On Monday 30 June 2014 23:23:53 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Isn't this the tool that Sune wrote and mentioned earlier in this bug as
> being incomplete and primarily useful for generating a template that
> requires subsequent work?
Correct.
The primary issue is that there isn't a 1:1 mapping between al
Keith Packard writes:
> Thanks for pointing that out. desktop2menu is a perl script which uses
> the published perl bindings for .desktop files and has a start at a
> mapping from .desktop Categories to menu sections. It also doesn't
> correctly handle generating .xpm files for the icons.
> I th
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> Keith Packard writes:
>> 1. Implement .desktop parsing support in the existing 'menu' package so
>> that packages providing only .desktop files would be incorporated
>> into menu programs without further change.
>
>
> FWIW, it seems there is at least partial supp
Keith Packard writes:
> 1. Implement .desktop parsing support in the existing 'menu' package so
> that packages providing only .desktop files would be incorporated
> into menu programs without further change.
FWIW, it seems there is at least partial support for that already. At
least on
Josselin Mouette writes:
> One of the problems I have with your proposal, compared to Charles’
> original patch, is that it encourages maintainers of hundreds of (IMHO
> useless) menu files to port them to the desktop format.
Yeah, there are a lot of inappropriate entries in my /usr/share/menu
d
Russ Allbery writes:
> The counterpoint here, which I had missed earlier in this discussion, is
> the file format for the menus themselves, not the *.desktop files. I
> agree with you about the *.desktop file format, but the specification for
> the menus is much more complicated. See:
>
> h
Cameron Norman writes:
> 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
Hi,
Le lundi 30 juin 2014 à 13:59 -0700, Keith Packard a écrit :
> One of the arguments that I had heard expressed against supporting
> applications shipping .desktop files is that it would reduce the number
> of applications offered in existing menu packages; I'm hoping that my
> draft addresses
Colin Watson writes:
> * 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 cove
Ian Jackson writes:
> 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.
Right, as I said in the May TC meeting, I would draft
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
>> But I'd like to make some specific comments too. (I'm reading
>> 24f00b5:741573_menu_systems/keithp_draft.txt, of which I attach a
>> copy.)
> ...
>
> Oh
Le Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:59:50AM -0700, Cameron Norman a écrit :
>
> 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
>
On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Colin Watson 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 main
(Sorry I missed the meeting today. I'm away on vacation and my schedule
ended up not aligning properly.)
Colin Watson writes:
> 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
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
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> But I'd like to make some specific comments too. (I'm reading
> 24f00b5:741573_menu_systems/keithp_draft.txt, of which I attach a
> copy.)
...
Oh, and:
Fourthly: It makes no provision for the translati
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.
But I'd like to make some specific comments too. (I'm reading
24f00b5:741573_menu_s
I looked through this thread and found that I hadn't proposed anything
resembling a concrete resolution. I would like to do that now:
Context
1. A dispute about the status of menu systems in Debian, and the
contents of policy, has been referred to the Committee.
2. There are currentl
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'd divide them up into:
>
> - someone spends their time fixing the issue
> - bad things happen to the unfixed package
> - how likely someone is to notice
> Obviously the most important/useful part of those is categories is
> getting someone to fix the damn thing,
Ian Jackson writes:
> I think that all of these features (desktop files, trad menu entries,
> manpages and doc-base bugs) should have the same status.
> I would describe that status like this:
> * A maintainer should not be criticised for uploading a package
>without the feature.
> * Con
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So, I think the questions before the TC are:
>>
>> 1. Should programs that make sense in the context of a typical DE (I
>>realize there's some fuzziness around this) all have desktop files?
> Ah, I completely misread this before as saying "men
Hi again,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> So, I think the questions before the TC are:
>
> 1. Should programs that make sense in the context of a typical DE (I
>realize there's some fuzziness around this) all have desktop files?
Ah, I completely misread this before as saying "menu files" instead of
"d
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Things that I don't think are TC issues:
>
> * Whether desktop files should be documented in Policy at all.
For what it's worth:
* I was unhappy with the patch at http://bugs.debian.org/707851 and
said so. I didn't object when people seconded it and applied it
On 12 April 2014 05:32, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So, to take a step back, I think Ian is arguing that, by declaring the
> traditional menu system a "should," he's not introducing a problem into
> Policy that doesn't already exist, because our current use of "should" is
> all over the map.
I think it
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> So, I think the questions before the TC are:
>
> 1. Should programs that make sense in the context of a typical DE (I
>realize there's some fuzziness around this) all have desktop files? If
>so, wh
So, to take a step back, I think Ian is arguing that, by declaring the
traditional menu system a "should," he's not introducing a problem into
Policy that doesn't already exist, because our current use of "should" is
all over the map.
I agree with that statement as far as it goes, but I don't thin
On Friday 11 April 2014 18:25:01 you wrote:
> Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
> > > Can you come up with any examples where "should" is used in a way that
> > &
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
> > Can you come up with any examples where "should" is used in a way that
> > _does not_ permit a maintainer to disregard it if it appe
On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
> Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > Then we have a "double standard" here. For some cases we (as in "the
> > project") consider "should" as Stuart and
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Then we have a "double standard" here. For some cases we (as in "the
> project") consider "should" as Stuart and I described it before, but
> we do *also* consider it a &
On Friday 11 April 2014 15:23:06 Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> The upshot is that we don't currently insist that maintainers provide
> manpages. I have never been criticised by anyone for uploading or
> sponsoring anything with missing manpages. I don't think anyone else
> should be criticised for
Stuart Prescott writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:04:12 Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't imagine you're proposing changing the wording of the sections
> > of policy on doc-base entries, manpages, etc. to "may".
>
>
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:04:12 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stuart Prescott writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about
> > > the Debian menu take care of that testing.
> >
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
>> So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that
>> there isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections
>> raised in the discussions and not addressed, then please say
>> that. If you have not reviewed things suff
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> If, as Russ claimed, a consensus was reached in a properly conducted
> policy process, then I strongly disagree with the approach the TC is
> taking. I think it creates significant harm for the project as a whole
>
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:27:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Thanks for bringing this issue back to the question that was
>> brought to the TC.
>> The discussion so far on this bug has focused on discussing what
>> the right m
Stuart Prescott writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about
> > the Debian menu take care of that testing.
>
> As others have pointed out, that's a level a lot lower in ev
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
...
> - What *I* want is for the TC to take a principled stand on the point that
>the policy manual exists to describe distribution-wide integration
>policies, instead of taking a "there's more than on
On Thursday 10 April 2014 18:25:43 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > if it takes 5 minutes to write a menu file and 5 minutes to switch to one
> > of those 'old style' window managers and test that it shows up a
On Friday 11 April 2014 12:43:48 Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about
> > the Debian menu take care of that testing.
>
> As others have pointed out, that's a level a lot lower in everyone's
> current understanding of wh
Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about
> the Debian menu take care of that testing.
As others have pointed out, that's a level a lot lower in everyone's
current understanding of what "should" means in the context of policy. This
may not be what w
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:27:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this issue back to the question that was brought to
> the TC.
> The discussion so far on this bug has focused on discussing what the
> right menu policy is for Debian.
> That, however was not the question that wa
Steve Langasek writes:
> - What *I* want is for the TC to take a principled stand on the point that
>the policy manual exists to describe distribution-wide integration
>policies, instead of taking a "there's more than one way to do it" easy
>way out.
This is what I'd prefer too. I
Hi Ian,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 04:15:18PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Of course the participants in the discussion were approaching the
> discussion on the basis that they are arguing about what the assumed
> single menu system should be like. But it seems to me that we can
> give everyone what
On Thursday 10 April 2014 09:38:28 Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > I did find three which are arguably recalcitrant maintainers:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=407750
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609807
> > https://bugs.debian.org
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
>> I do think that "should" in Policy is stronger than that, and I don't
>> think just weakening "should" for all of Policy is the right solution
>> to this bug.
On Thursday 10 April 2014 14:06:11 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Has anyone described any actual difficulties with supporting the
> traditional menu ?
I am in the uploaders field of packages that probably requires 300 menu files
to
be available and of one consumer of "menus".
if it takes 5 minutes to wr
Sune Vuorela writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> if it takes 5 minutes to write a menu file and 5 minutes to switch to one of
> those 'old style' window managers and test that it shows up as it should, it
> is 3000 minutes. Or 1 hour per week in a year.
I
Ian Jackson writes:
> I did find three which are arguably recalcitrant maintainers:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=407750
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609807
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=738027
> But this is a gratifyingly l
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > IMO if those patches aren't unreasonable then maintainers should accept
> > them, even if they're slightly less automatic than would be ideal.
>
> Sure. I don'
Ian Jackson writes:
> I think you've misunderstood me. I felt Ansgar and I were discussing in
> the abstract what would be the most optimal situation. Certainly I'm
> not saying that policy should mandate the use of anything that doesn't
> currently exist.
> I think that whether the general ma
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> >> [1] This might include maintainers having to convert icons at package
> >> build time and so on.
>
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> That's not "should" in the Policy sense. "Should" in the Policy sense
> does, in fact, mean that you have to do work to support it, although the
> level of pressure is only mild rather than at t
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Charles Plessy writes:
> > The underlying question is: who should spend the time writing these
> > files and keeping them up to date ?
...
> > In the case of missing manual pages, the policy (§ 12.1) d
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
>> [1] This might include maintainers having to convert icons at package
>> build time and so on.
> I think this is something quite trivial that can be centralised and
> automa
Charles Plessy writes:
> The underlying question is: who should spend the time writing these
> files and keeping them up to date ?
> In the case of missing manual pages, the policy (§ 12.1) does not
> require the package maintainer to write one.
Hm. I have never read that section of Policy tha
Ian Jackson writes:
> If you don't like the trad menu, you don't have to use it. Nor do you
> have to do any significant amount of work to support it. All that is
> being asked is that you take other people's patches to support it.
That's not "should" in the Policy sense. "Should" in the Poli
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> [1] This might include maintainers having to convert icons at package
> build time and so on.
I think this is something quite trivial that can be centralised and
automated (dh_...). Moving work from install ti
Hi,
On 04/10/2014 13:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> That comes directly from its goal
> of being easily consumable by a very wide range of window managers.
The number of consumers (window manager, menu applets, desktop
environments) is much smaller than the number of providers (in theory
every applicat
Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Le mercredi 09 avril 2014 à 15:04 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Matthias Klumpp writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > > Also think about HIDPI-screens in particular, where these small i
Charles Plessy writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> The underlying question is: who should spend the time writing these files and
> keeping them up to date ?
The answer is, whoever wants to. In the first instance the maintainer
may choose to do so; if they don't, t
Le Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:34:51PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> It is the demotion of the traditional menu from "should" to "can"
> which is controversial. For the reasons I have already explained, I
> do not agree with that.
Hi Ian,
yes, it is that part that is controversial, and I would a
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> So, I'd like to request the TC to first consider whether a consensus was
> reached in the process and if so whether there's a compelling reason not
> to respect that consensus. If no consensus was reached or the T
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 15.00:44 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Right. I understand that some people don't think the comprehensive
> > menu is useful. However, there are a lot of things in
> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
Didier> I think this is allowed by the patch pointed by Charles,
Didier> which adds the following paragraph to the policy:
>> Packages can, to be compatible with Debian additions to some
>> window managers that do not support the Fre
Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 15.00:44 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Right. I understand that some people don't think the comprehensive
> menu is useful. However, there are a lot of things in Debian that
> some people think aren't useful. The usual principle is that if
> someone thinks something useful a
On Wednesday 09 April 2014 15:04:36 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Matthias Klumpp writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > Also think about HIDPI-screens in particular, where these small icons
> > don't make sense at all (in fact, they are so small that you often
> &g
Matthias Klumpp writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Also think about HIDPI-screens in particular, where these small icons
> don't make sense at all (in fact, they are so small that you often
> can't even tell what they display).
In situations like this, presu
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 12.21:28 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > This means that we need two systems.
>
> I don't think I missed the point; I was bringing a orthogonal one. I
> understand you
2014-04-09 15:13 GMT+02:00 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud :
> Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 12.21:28 Ian Jackson a écrit :
>> You have missed my key point about differences of goals between the
>> two menu systems. The trad menu explicitly has the goal of providing
>> a menu item for every invokable thing; whe
Le mercredi, 9 avril 2014, 12.21:28 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> You have missed my key point about differences of goals between the
> two menu systems. The trad menu explicitly has the goal of providing
> a menu item for every invokable thing; whereas the desktop menu
> maintainers want it to provide
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> The 'trad' menu file or the 'desktop' xdg file are only the starting
> point of their technical differences; one other technical difference
> that matters is the support for
Le mardi, 8 avril 2014, 18.30:26 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Technology: The two systems have different file formats. While the
> semantics of the information presented overlap, there are substantial
> differences in the capabilities of the two systems.
The 'trad' menu file or the 'desktop' xdg file
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:23:50PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> Note that a very wide range of window managers neither supports the trad.
> menu
> nor the desktop menu, but has a series of scripts to modify one or the other
> into their native format. In Debian, most of these window managers onl
Hi
I think there is a couple of facts that aren't fully accurate. I'll try to
mention them here. I'll try to keep opinions out of this mail.
On Tuesday 08 April 2014 18:30:26 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Consumers: The trad menu is already consumable by a very wide range of
> window managers etc.; the d
I have a very different take on this to Russ.
We currently have two menu systems. I'm going to call them the "trad"
and "desktop" menus.
They have the following very important differences (some of these are
matters of opinion, but I will take what appear to me to be the
opinions of their respec
81 matches
Mail list logo
