[plasmashell] [Bug 411876] Plasma themes require non-FDO-compliant .desktop files
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411876 Christoph Feck changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDSINFO |REPORTED Resolution|WAITINGFORINFO |--- --- Comment #4 from Christoph Feck --- Changing status. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[plasmashell] [Bug 411876] Plasma themes require non-FDO-compliant .desktop files
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411876 --- Comment #3 from Christoph Feck --- New information was added with comment #2; changing status for inspection. Maybe for Plasma 6 these could be renamed to *.metadata or port to *.json format instead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[plasmashell] [Bug 411876] Plasma themes require non-FDO-compliant .desktop files
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411876 --- Comment #2 from Adam Williamson --- It seems rather misleading to use the same extension and the same general format as a very widely-recognized specification, but not actually meet that specification. At the very least it could be specifically noted in the docs. It did cause a real-world problem, yes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745846#c10 it sufficiently confused a reviewer on the Fedora 31 backgrounds package that they required desktop-file-validate be run on the file and it be modified to pass that check...which of course meant it didn't work any more. This contributed to Fedora 31 Beta shipping with KDE having the wrong desktop background. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[plasmashell] [Bug 411876] Plasma themes require non-FDO-compliant .desktop files
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411876 David Edmundson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REPORTED|NEEDSINFO Resolution|--- |WAITINGFORINFO --- Comment #1 from David Edmundson --- Yes and no. It's not a valid Desktop Entry, but equally it's not being parsed as one. Desktop Entries are for use in applications directories, or links. This isn't one, it just happens to share the file extension. There's no reason for something that isn't us to be using this file, so there's nothing to clash with. Does this cause a real world problem? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
