[2013-12-06 18:15:36 +0100] Alexander Rødseth: > I think .desktop files should ideally be provided by upstream. But for > cases where they are not currently being provided, we should provide > them. Sure. That's exactly like service files, or rc.d files before that. Nothing new here. > Regardless of if it is correct that upstream should provide the > .desktop files or not, the current plan is not working. TUs and devs > are slow at reporting this as bugs and upstream are slow at > responding. At the current rate, this will take years, perhaps > decades. The current plan is not working. Why not? If a given package does not have a desktop file and nobody is bothered enough to write one up and submit it through our bug tracker, then that package does not really need a desktop file. > Here are the arguments for generating the .desktop files with a tool > like "gendesk": > > * There is much duplication of code by having one .desktop file per > (GUI) package > * If the .desktop specification should change in the future, there is > only one tool that has to be changed, not bazillions of little > .desktop files > * If there should be alternative ways of providing desktop shortcuts > in the future, possibly for other desktop environments, the transition > will be easier > * It's more elegant than including manually crafted files everywhere > * It provides one consistent look of .desktop files and avoids > problems (for instance, one hand crafted (or upstream provided?) > .desktop file used Terminal=1 instead of Terminal=true, which caused > problems). Generated files are consistent, which avoids problems. > * gendesk is already being used for several packages (and has been > used for a while), and it seems to work fine > * Many files are generating during the prepare or build process. > .desktop files should be generated too. So you suggest we use pacman hooks to deal with desktop files? Should service files be autogenerated as well? (I don't think so.) > If there are no protests, I will, after some time (say, three days > without any replies to this thread): > > * Create a TODO for this > * Start fixing the packages (I will not fix the packages of > maintainers that wish to reserve themselves from this, of course). I object to any mass automated update of our PKGBUILDs. Why are you making such a big deal out of such an insignificant issue? Packages for whom nobody has yet bothered to write a desktop file just have no need for one... -- Gaetan
