From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 14 19:08:16 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BCD106566B; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:08:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: pav@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:07:54 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <201107121826.00020.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <4E1F200D.1080002@missouri.edu> <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <201107141508.00682.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith , "demon@FreeBSD.org" , Stephen Montgomery-Smith , "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" , "lioux@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] A trivial change for DESKTOP_ENTRIES (take 2) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:08:16 -0000 On Thursday 14 July 2011 01:54 pm, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Stephen Montgomery-Smith p紫e v �t 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500: > > entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is > > unimportant, > > The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and > our only care should be not have two ports installing same file. I believe the original intention was to use executable name to make desktop file, i.e., ${PREFIX}/bin/foo -> ${DESKTOPDIR}/foo.desktop. I understand your concerns but we only have to worry about two ports installing executables with a same name in two different directories and both having DESKTOP_ENTRIES. I haven't seen such ports from our ports tree. If there is, it should be fixed individually. Or we may have to consider something totally radical. > > and is used only internally by Gnome or whatever. > > Sounds like a bug to me. Why do you think there is a bug? Basically, desktop files are meta-data for OSes which cannot handle extended attributes within a file (e.g., resource fork of Mac), if I understand it correctly. I don't see anything wrong with GNOME referencing its window manager by desktop file name rather than by executable name with obscure options. > > But maybe it would have been better to have had one more entry in > > DESKTOP_ENTRIES that was the actual filename of the desktop > > entry. > > Yes, but is it worth the effort? Note you'll have to introduce it > somehow not to break existing ports. DESKTOP_ENTRIES are for *basic* stuff and bsd.port.mk clearly says complex desktop files cannot use it: Rules: * Only add desktop entries for applications which do not require a terminal (ie. X applications). * If the upstream distribution already installs .desktop files, you do not need to use this. * If you require a more elaborate .desktop file than this variable permits, write it yourself and install it in ${DESKTOPDIR}. The actual bug for bsd.port.mk was that it did not mention field 4 Exec cannot contain '/' or any options, IMHO. Jung-uk Kim