[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-bugs-dist
Subject:    [Bug 127445] desktop entries don't match f.d.o standard
From:       Carsten Lohrke <current () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2006-05-17 18:48:41
Message-ID: 20060517184841.11915.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127445         




------- Additional Comments From current myrealbox com  2006-05-17 20:48 -------
> That sounds logical, but the spec just does not describe our extentions.

Non-standardized (extended) .desktop files are illogical. From my point of view there \
are two ways to solve it for KDE 4: Either adhere to the standard or use another \
extension, so no one confuses the files with f.d.o desktop entries. 

You ask why? Let assume every Linux desktop / wm has it's own extended .desktop files \
- how should a distributor do (automated) quality checks, when telling these \
different .desktop entries apart is the very first problem!?


> Please understand this: the other desktop files are not installed into directories \
> where other environments would look.

Once again: I am quite aware of it. KDE just isn't the center of the Linux world and \
adding directory excludes etc. for KDE, foo, bar, baz could become cumbersome at some \
point. Standardizing the extended functionality where it makes sense and otherwise \
respecting the standard is preferable. Please play nice. :)


Maybe I can use this bug to place a related question: I had to deal with an app \
shipping a broken service .desktop entry, lately and the only way to fix it was to \
look at similar installed ones. I assume there's a spec/description for these \
"extended" .desktop entries, but I couldn't find it. Could you point me to it, \
please!? Exists a validator?


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]