On Friday 24 June 2011 13:21:50 Michael Thayer wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 12:47 +0200, David Faure wrote: > > On Thursday 23 June 2011, Michael Thayer wrote: > > > does [ http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2011-April/011882.html > > > ] look good to you? > > > > It says that "./" is relative to the location of the .desktop file. I can > > see the idea behind it, but then what happens when Path is set? > > > > From an implementation point of view it's easier to chdir(Path) and then > > execute ./foo, but I can see how from a user point of view the idea is > > maybe more to say "resolve to a full path from the directory containing > > the .desktop file, then chdir(Path), then run the executable with a full > > path"? > > > > I'm talking about a case like /home/dfaure/foo.desktop saying: > > Exec=./foo > > Path=/tmp > > > > Should this do (cd /tmp ; ./foo) or (cd /tmp ; /home/dfaure/foo) ? > > > > I'm guessing the latter is more useful, but maybe less expected. > > > > (More useful because the first one can be done with Exec=/tmp/foo, since > > in > > that case we know about /tmp as an absolute path anyway). > > I agree with what you said about the second variant being more useful. > In fact it seems more intuitive to me to specify all paths as absolute > (that is Exec too) if you really know that you are wanting to > run /tmp/foo.
Agreed. Did anything come out of this? Should the suggested patch for the spec be amended to clarify the issue above? Any objections from main implementors to supporting "./" in Exec and Icon fields? -- David Faure, [email protected], http://www.davidfaure.fr Sponsored by Nokia to work on KDE, incl. KDE Frameworks 5 _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
