Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:07:54 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, "demon@FreeBSD.org" <demon@freebsd.org>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, "lioux@FreeBSD.org" <lioux@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] A trivial change for DESKTOP_ENTRIES (take 2) Message-ID: <201107141508.00682.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <201107121826.00020.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <4E1F200D.1080002@missouri.edu> <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201107141508.00682.jkim>