Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:47:43 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, pav@freebsd.org Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, demon@freebsd.org, Montgomery-Smith <stephen@freebsd.org>, lioux@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] A trivial change for DESKTOP_ENTRIES (take 2) Message-ID: <201107141547.45809.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1310670953.23182.8.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <201107121826.00020.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201107141508.00682.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <1310670953.23182.8.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 14 July 2011 03:15 pm, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Jung-uk Kim p紫e v �t 14. 07. 2011 v 15:07 -0400:
> > > > 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.
>
> Yes, and then came ports that needed to install several icons for
> same executable, with different arguments. That was the reason for
> the change.
That had to be considered a bug for the ports, not for bsd.port.mk.
As I said, the only bug in it was not describing limitations more
clearly, IMHO.
> > > > 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
>
> No, .desktop files are just gnomeish equivalent of windows .pif
> files.
.pif was a poor copycat of Mac's resource fork. ;-P
> If they are used for something more significant, that's poor design
> by my standards. That's why I wanted to get an opinion from gnome
> team before taking any steps on this issue.
Poor design, maybe. But what's your point, really?
> > 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.
>
> If that .desktop file was that critical for GNOME functionality,
> then why it is not installed by vendor Makefiles and have to be
> hacked in in the port??
You mean x11-wm/compiz? As far as I know, many Linux "distros"
install their own customized .desktop files. As such, often times
"vendors" don't install it by default.
> > DESKTOP_ENTRIES are for *basic* stuff and bsd.port.mk clearly
> > says complex desktop files cannot use it:
>
> Yes but I see no need to abandon DESKTOP_ENTRIES for a simple port
> like links..
Please let the maintainers decide.
Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201107141547.45809.jkim>