[gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Heinrich Wendel]

Hi,

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

mfg, Heinrich :)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, 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 substance of this isn't changed as far as I can tell: the brunt of
creating all these .desktop files and maybe icons still lies on us.

I still agree with a point made in the last thread:

What's so bad about filing this as an upstream request instead? It
significantly reduces our work since we don't have to do it for hundreds
of packages. Instead, an upstream developer only has to do it once.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[John Nilsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1188 bytes --]

On 12/13/03 02:51:51, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, 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 substance of this isn't changed as far as I can tell: the brunt  
> of
> creating all these .desktop files and maybe icons still lies on us.
> 
> I still agree with a point made in the last thread:
> 
> What's so bad about filing this as an upstream request instead? It
> significantly reduces our work since we don't have to do it for
> hundreds
> of packages. Instead, an upstream developer only has to do it once.
>

In one sence you could say: "There is no Gentoo, only Portage!" and you  
would be right, it is an upstream responsibility. I also belive that  
this is the only practical way of the Gentoo community.

On the other hand, if Gentoo Linux is ever going to be a complete OS,  
the Gentoo community must take responsibility for every last bit of  
code in it. In this case I belive that metadata should be part of the  
package not the application.

/John

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 481 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Heinrich Wendel]

Am Saturday 13 December 2003 02:51 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, 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 substance of this isn't changed as far as I can tell: the brunt of
> creating all these .desktop files and maybe icons still lies on us.
>
> I still agree with a point made in the last thread:
>
> What's so bad about filing this as an upstream request instead? It
> significantly reduces our work since we don't have to do it for hundreds
> of packages. Instead, an upstream developer only has to do it once.

Most desktop related applications already ship with a .dekstop file and an 
icon, you just have to install them in the correct locations.

mfg, heinrich :)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Björn Michaelsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 301 bytes --]

How will be determined for with desktops .desktop files have to be processed? Is a virtual (like for mtas) maybe able to handle this?
-- 
Björn Michaelsen
pub  1024D/C9E5A256 2003-01-21 Björn Michaelsen <bmichaelsen@gmx.de>
   Key fingerprint = D649 8C78 1CB1 23CF 5CCF  CA1A C1B5 BBEC C9E5 A256

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Heinrich Wendel]

Am Saturday 13 December 2003 16:32 schrieb Björn Michaelsen:
> How will be determined for with desktops .desktop files have to be
> processed? Is a virtual (like for mtas) maybe able to handle this?

Sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.

mfg, heinrich

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[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.

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)?

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.

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.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Joel Konkle-Parker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

foser wrote:
> 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 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 disagree. I think that a cohesive Gentoo icon set would be a very good 
thing. It'd promote a consistent look and feel among the most commonly 
used apps (or categories).


-- 
Joel Konkle-Parker
Webmaster [Ballsome.com]

Phone     [+1 662-518-1636]
E-mail    [jjk3@msstate.edu]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Peter Ruskin]

On Sunday 14 December 2003 00:59, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> foser wrote:
> > 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 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 disagree. I think that a cohesive Gentoo icon set would be a very
> good thing. It'd promote a consistent look and feel among the most
> commonly used apps (or categories).

I'm with foser here.  This is Gentoo, not Mandrake.

Peter
-- 
======================================================================
Gentoo Linux:	Portage 2.0.49-r18 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, 
glibc-2.3.2-r3, 2.6.0-test11-gentoo-r1-win4lin)	i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 
3200+
======================================================================

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:14:11AM +0000, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> >
> > I disagree. I think that a cohesive Gentoo icon set would be a very
> > good thing. It'd promote a consistent look and feel among the most
> > commonly used apps (or categories).
> 
> I'm with foser here.  This is Gentoo, not Mandrake.
> 

I agree.

Anyone remember how everyone felt about RH throwing their own icons in 
everything, not to mention Bluecurve?

Know what I hear most often from users? "One thing I really like about 
Gentoo is that you guys don't mess around with defaults much."


-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1067 bytes --]

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 07:17, Heinrich Wendel wrote:
> Am Saturday 13 December 2003 02:51 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, 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 substance of this isn't changed as far as I can tell: the brunt of
> > creating all these .desktop files and maybe icons still lies on us.
> >
> > I still agree with a point made in the last thread:
> >
> > What's so bad about filing this as an upstream request instead? It
> > significantly reduces our work since we don't have to do it for hundreds
> > of packages. Instead, an upstream developer only has to do it once.
> 
> Most desktop related applications already ship with a .dekstop file and an 
> icon, you just have to install them in the correct locations.

And those that don't? Do we do it ourselves or send upstream? I think
you need to mention this in the GLEP.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:00:00 +0100
Heinrich Wendel <lanius@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Saturday 13 December 2003 16:32 schrieb Björn Michaelsen:
> > How will be determined for with desktops .desktop files have to be
> > processed? Is a virtual (like for mtas) maybe able to handle this?
> 
> Sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.
There needs to be a plan on how to implement the menu in different DE/WMs. But I for example am not using KDE, and portage needs to know that it does not need to create a menu for kde. Should this be handled by something like java-config or will portage check for every installed DEs/WMs and generate a menu fro it? What happens when a DE/WM is installed after all other software ?


-- 
Björn Michaelsen
pub  1024D/C9E5A256 2003-01-21 Björn Michaelsen <bmichaelsen@gmx.de>
   Key fingerprint = D649 8C78 1CB1 23CF 5CCF  CA1A C1B5 BBEC C9E5 A256

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Heinrich Wendel]

Am Sunday 14 December 2003 07:24 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 07:17, Heinrich Wendel wrote:
> > Am Saturday 13 December 2003 02:51 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, 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 substance of this isn't changed as far as I can tell: the brunt of
> > > creating all these .desktop files and maybe icons still lies on us.
> > >
> > > I still agree with a point made in the last thread:
> > >
> > > What's so bad about filing this as an upstream request instead? It
> > > significantly reduces our work since we don't have to do it for
> > > hundreds of packages. Instead, an upstream developer only has to do it
> > > once.
> >
> > Most desktop related applications already ship with a .dekstop file and
> > an icon, you just have to install them in the correct locations.
>
> And those that don't? Do we do it ourselves or send upstream? I think
> you need to mention this in the GLEP.

I think we should write a basic one (done in 5 minutes) and send it upstream.

mfg, heinrich :)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Heinrich Wendel]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Gentoo Menu System - Version 2

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1395 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:21:01 +0100
Bjoern Michaelsen <P17y004@public.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:00:00 +0100
> Heinrich Wendel <lanius@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Am Saturday 13 December 2003 16:32 schrieb Björn Michaelsen:
> > > How will be determined for with desktops .desktop files have to be
> > > processed? Is a virtual (like for mtas) maybe able to handle this?
> > 
> > Sorry, but i don't understand what you mean.
> There needs to be a plan on how to implement the menu in different
> DE/WMs. But I for example am not using KDE, and portage needs to know
> that it does not need to create a menu for kde. Should this be handled
> by something like java-config or will portage check for every
> installed DEs/WMs and generate a menu fro it? What happens when a
> DE/WM is installed after all other software ?
'

The point about .desktop files is that the data is generic. You never
really -generate- a menu. You have a file, and make sure that all tools
(gnome,kde,*box, windowmaker , xfce, whatnot)  understand and read this
file, and merge it into their own menu.


some more reading might be required, freedesktop.org has the menu spec
and the desktop spec.

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]