On Friday 03 February 2006 05:40, Jeremy White wrote:
> > datadir is an autoconf-ism, the implicit assumption here is that a binary
> > is installed to {prefix}/bin and it's data files to locations under
> > {prefix}/share. E.g. an application would install manpages to
> > {datadir}/man
>
> Thanks for the explanation. But that shorthand isn't appropriate
> for a specification like this, imho (nor does it really answer
> the question, as you can't control what ./configure choices
> a given users Linux provider used).The thinking here is that if a user wants to install an application to a different prefix, the .desktop file should go there as well and it's up to the user to include the new prefix to XDG_DATA_DIRS in such case. However, that thinking fails to provide correct guidance on what should happen in the normal case. > > Not sure if it's a typo in your e-mail, but it is /usr/local/share, > > not /usr/share/local. > > Yes, sorry. > > > Can it be that the sytems that you have tested that fail to respond to > > files placed in /usr/local/share/applications, fail to notice the new > > directory? Do they recognize new files in that directory after a restart? > > I haven't probed it carefully. Does that imply that my > analysis is wrong, and that the expected correct behavior is > to use the first directory in XDG_DATA_DIRS no matter what? > > I would argue that my algorithm is better <grin>. > It feels less invasive (making a directory where one never > existed suggests you're doing something the user might > not like), and more adaptable to field conditions. Although it's probably a pragmatic approach I don't think applications should base their decision where to install on $XDG_DATA_DIRS. Where is the application itself installed? How do you handle manpages? Cheers, Waldo
pgpKYFK0eR2dq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
