------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
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?
____________________________________
koffice mailing list
koffice@kde.org
To unsubscribe please visit:
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice