On Tuesday 31 December 2013 16:48:30 Jerome Leclanche wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Jasper St. Pierre > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So that detail should be in the menu spec, not the desktop file spec. > >> I see no mention of TryExec in > >> http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-1.0.html > > > > Speaking with my GNOME hat on, GNOME is now ignoring the menu spec > > upstream, in favor of allowing the user to create their own categories > > and folders in the GNOME Shell Overview. > > > > Personally, I do not feel the menu-spec should be extended anymore, or > > considered something we recommend to OEMs. > > > >> In my mind, desktop files are as declarative as possible; and so, the > >> desktop file spec should not dictate implementations as that is > >> completely counter-intuitive. Maybe the TryExec key can be used to > >> hide files in the menu spec, and maybe it can be used for something > >> completely different in another. The former usage is only relevant to > >> the menu spec. > > > > I strongly feel that TryExec should be well-defined and used for hiding > > apps. Otherwise, we don't really have a specification, we just agree that > > TryExec is a key that contains a path, and maybe it will hide apps when it > > doesn't exist, and maybe it will launch green army men to the moon when it > > doesn't exist. > > > > There are plenty of cases where we don't use the menu-spec at all, but > > need > > to launch apps. One simple example is the "Open With..." prompt in > > Nautilus/Files: we show a list of apps to the user, and need to run > > TryExec > > by the standard. menu-spec was not involved here. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the TryExec key, and have an > additional key to define the behaviour if TryExec is missing? > > You could have something like: > > gmail.desktop > TryExec=firefox > MissingExecutable=X > > where X could be ignore (default), hide (current behaviour) or even > something like delete, where the desktop file would be deleted > altogether (if that is possible) if the TryExec is missing. > > Or you could just have a boolean key HideIfMissing=true, defaulting to > either.
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. "ignore" the same as not having a TryExec key at all, "hide" is what we have, and "delete", well, I certainly wouldn't want to enable a feature that deletes my carefully crafted .desktop file because of a typo in TryExec. (and system desktop files are typically not deletable, so this is indeed really only about user desktop files) -- David Faure, [email protected], http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5 _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
