From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28135 invoked by uid 1002); 15 Dec 2003 09:24:45 -0600 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 24569 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2003 09:24:44 -0600 From: Heinrich Wendel To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:24:38 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.94 References: <200312121948.47597.lanius@gentoo.org> <1071361576.22752.22.camel@rivendell> In-Reply-To: <1071361576.22752.22.camel@rivendell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200312151624.38582.lanius@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2 X-Archives-Salt: 04662929-30ce-40a9-804b-6e9f0b48414b X-Archives-Hash: 58c7b806e6b5c881f69ee83450ea3890 Am Sunday 14 December 2003 01:26 schrieb foser: > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 19:48, Heinrich Wendel wrote: > > Based on the comments of the last thread on -dev about this GLEP I > > created a new version. Please take a look at > > > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0016.html > > The new GLEP is short on how to actually implement these changes. What > is the implementation plan for the *box-es, kde, xfce, etc. ? Gnome > should be fairly trivial to adapt at this point. Gnome and KDE are trivial to adapt. The plan for the rest ist to contact the developers if they are planing to support the spec, or find some people who can help writing patches for these. I remeber Havoc Pennington already has a patch for WindoMaker to support the Spec, I'll ask him to send it to me. > What is the plan regarding .desktop items, most of the current items are > based on slightly older desktop spec. Do we plan to support those as > well (the reference library implementations [12] & [13] don't handle > them completely correct afaik) ? Also there are quite a few apps that > use so called legacy .desktop files -the menu spec can handle those-, > but is that what we want (i'd say yes)? The old version of the desktop entries are the ones without "Category" element, so called legacy .desktop files. My opinion is to change these to include the "Category" field and send the new version upstream since the two library implementations have still problems with legacy .desktop files and the big bunch of applications from KDE and GNOME will already have this field. > In general i pretty much agree with what is stated in this revision, > only the part about portage commands is a bit unclear, domenu & doicon > should be functions for the few apps that do not create entries > themselves. This happens almost never. They should just insert the icon/desktop file into the correct location. So you do 'dodesktop foo.desktop' instead of 'insinto /usr/share/applications; doins foo.desktop". Maybe it's a bit overhead. > The icon theme i don't really understand. Apps come with their own icons > usually, i see no need for a reference (?) gentoo icon set. I think I didn't make me very cleare here. Please don't confuse icon theme and icon set. I'm not for every app should contain a gentoo made icon. But apps need a place to put their icons to. Generally they belong into /usr/share/pixmaps, but if an app provides icons of differenz sizes they have to belong to an icon theme. But to which one? KDE-default, GNOME-default? So we have to provide a place to put them, which I just called "the Gentoo icon theme". > - foser mfg, Heinrich -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list