From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13190 invoked by uid 1002); 13 Aug 2003 21:45:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 23960 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 21:45:54 -0000 From: Chris Gianelloni To: Heinrich Wendel Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200308132316.56438.lanius@gentoo.org> References: <200308131844.24013.lanius@gentoo.org> <200308132238.03426.lanius@gentoo.org> <1060808919.19250.32.camel@vertigo> <200308132316.56438.lanius@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5lpvRpvVQjEiYYZUMNHp" Message-Id: <1060811401.19236.42.camel@vertigo> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 13 Aug 2003 17:50:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Menu - Bash vs. Python Rule files X-Archives-Salt: 94689d73-2171-4c77-94f1-da38ec991f80 X-Archives-Hash: de2f811def8e62705eb38b257b0fd79d --=-5lpvRpvVQjEiYYZUMNHp Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 17:16, Heinrich Wendel wrote: > They have to change to use the new menu system. Even though ours conforms better to the current way both KDE and Gnome do it? > > Are you planning on changing all of the > > ebuilds which provide any form of .desktop entries?=20 > At the moment i see no other way. That sounds like a complete fuster-cluck and a total waste of developer time. This means we would have to make modifications to hundreds of ebuilds and either create source patches for packages or manually move and modify .desktop files from ebuilds/packages which currently provide them. As I see it, that is a worst-case scenario and probably the most labor-intensive way to go about it. > > What would an > > ebuild submitter need to do to make sure their ebuild's .desktop files > > meet the requirements?=20 >=20 > I will create a validater. I hope you plan on having it added to repoman, because I know that many developers are not going to care and won't bother running a stand-alone application to validate the menu entries in an ebuild. Many people would consider that "non-essential" behavior of a package. > > Would there have to be anything added to the > > ebuild to have the menus created properly, or is it done on-the-fly and > > transparently? >=20 > take a look at portage/domenu in cvs, so a ebuild would have to add one=20 > command: domenu foo.directory Like I said, it looks like a kludge. Would a better way of going about it not be to generate the menus from the already existing structures in place? Then no modification would need to be done to an ebuild to ensure proper menu usage. If, say, a new Gnome app was added and it adds its own .desktop entry to /usr/share/applications as it should, then update-menus should detect that application and modify the menus accordingly, rather than the developers having to modify the intended behavior of the package to suit our needs. If we were providing a near-stable tree of binary packages, I could see this happening easily, but Gentoo is too much of a moving target and quite frankly, I don't know many developers that want to be spending a large amount of time patching up ebuilds to make sure that they install their .desktop files into /usr/share/menu/applications or wherever we decide they should be.=20 Maybe I am just not understanding exactly hwo this is going to work out. Perhaps you could shed some light? --=20 Chris Gianelloni Developer, Gentoo Linux --=-5lpvRpvVQjEiYYZUMNHp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/OrKJkT4lNIS36YERAm4UAJ9D6wY4MSGZyIyNH0N1X9+KAbUz/ACgj/Si hC1a1GqpmmborM10HpvVtHc= =AwWW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5lpvRpvVQjEiYYZUMNHp--