Eric Schwartz wrote: > The other day, a co-worker complained that when he installed tuxkart, he > got a menu entry, but when he installed atanks, he didn't. A bit of > research showed the reason was that atanks had a menu file, but not a > .desktop file, and ubuntu doesn't include the menu package by default. > So, okay, no big deal; most packages have both menu and desktop files, > but a surprisingly large number don't. > A quick script later, I have a list of packages that have menu files, > but not desktop files. There's 2909 of them total; 403 in main, 109 in > multiverse, and 2397 in universe. I've attached the broken-out files.
Those numbers seem to be wrong. I guess it's because you are just looking in diff.gz, but most packages have the .desktop file in .orig.tar.gz. For example, decibel-audio-player and scribes (the packages I maintain in Debian) have a .desktop, though it's in .orig. And your script says they have menu file but not desktop. You'll have to fix that before doing a mass-filling ;) > Now, clearly, 2909 is a lot of packages, too many even for a mass > bug-filing, I would imagine (I've never done one before, at least). So > at this point, I figure I'll just throw the question open. I would > suggest that at least any package in main should have a .desktop file, > if only for usability's sake-- without a .desktop file a user might find > it harder than expected to run a program they thought they installed. > For universe and multiverse, eh, I figure if you enable those, you can > do a bit of work. But I'm CC:ing ubuntu-motu, on the grounds that their > priorities can certainly be different. > > -=Eric >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
