desktop file validation

[Christopher Aillon]

I got recently called out for using desktop-file-validate instead of 
desktop-file-install when the upstream .desktop file is correct, doesn't 
need to be changed, and make install already places it in the correct 
location.

Since the purpose of this guideline is to validate, I propose to amend 
the section of the packaging guidelines on desktop-file-install usage[1] 
as follows:

* Rename the sub-heading from "desktop-file-install" to ".desktop file
   installation and validation"

* Change the first sentence to:

<<
It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the 
package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in 
%install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure 
.desktop file safety and spec-compliance. desktop-file-install MUST be 
used if the package does not install the file or there are changes 
desired to the .desktop file (such as add/removing categories, etc). 
desktop-file-validate MAY be used instead if the .desktop file's 
content/location does not need modification.  Here are some examples of 
usage:
> > 
* Add the following example:

<<
   desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop
> > 


Thoughts?


[1] 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-d559ee7363418a584...

[Rex Dieter]

Christopher Aillon wrote:

>  * Add the following example:
>  <<
>    desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop
>   >> 
>  Thoughts? 
+1, could even go into %check section.

I *think* I had advocated the same change way been when, and the 
argument against it was (paraphrasing with my biased glasses on):
"keep it simple, don't confuse folks with extraneous options and examples."

-- Rex

[Development discussions related to Fedora]

Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  I got recently called out for using desktop-file-validate instead of
>
>  desktop-file-install when the upstream .desktop file is correct, doesn't 
>  need to be changed, and make install already places it in the correct 
>  location. 
This all makes good sense; but what are the actual differences between 
-validate and -install ?

Does install call validate ?

[Matthias Clasen]

On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 14:07 +1000, David Timms wrote:
>  Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  > I got recently called out for using desktop-file-validate instead of 
>  > desktop-file-install when the upstream .desktop file is correct, doesn't 
>  > need to be changed, and make install already places it in the correct 
>  > location.
>  
>  This all makes good sense; but what are the actual differences between 
>  -validate and -install ?
>  
>  Does install call validate ? 
Install validates the file that gets installed, but additionally, it
lets you make changes to the file before installing it, like
adding/removing OnlyShowIn keys, or changing categories, etc.

[Christopher Aillon]

On 04/18/2008 12:08 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  I got recently called out for using desktop-file-validate instead of
>
>  desktop-file-install when the upstream .desktop file is correct, doesn't 
>  need to be changed, and make install already places it in the correct 
>  location.
>  
>  Since the purpose of this guideline is to validate, I propose to amend 
>  the section of the packaging guidelines on desktop-file-install usage[1] 
>  as follows:
>  
>  * Rename the sub-heading from "desktop-file-install" to ".desktop file
>    installation and validation"
>  
>  * Change the first sentence to:
>  
>  <<
>  It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the 
>  package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in 
>  %install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure 
>  .desktop file safety and spec-compliance. desktop-file-install MUST be 
>  used if the package does not install the file or there are changes 
>  desired to the .desktop file (such as add/removing categories, etc). 
>  desktop-file-validate MAY be used instead if the .desktop file's 
>  content/location does not need modification.  Here are some examples of 
>  usage:
>   >>
>  
>  * Add the following example:
>  
>  <<
>    desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop
>   >>
>  
>  
>  
>  Thoughts?
>   
Any word on this?  Can this be voted on?

[Hans de Goede]

Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  On 04/18/2008 12:08 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> > I got recently called out for using desktop-file-validate instead of 
> > desktop-file-install when the upstream .desktop file is correct, 
> > doesn't need to be changed, and make install already places it in the 
> > correct location.
> >
> > Since the purpose of this guideline is to validate, I propose to amend 
> > the section of the packaging guidelines on desktop-file-install 
> > usage[1] as follows:
> >
> > * Rename the sub-heading from "desktop-file-install" to ".desktop
> file
> >   installation and validation"
> >
> > * Change the first sentence to:
> >
> > <<
> > It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the 
> > package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in 
> > %install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure 
> > .desktop file safety and spec-compliance. desktop-file-install MUST be 
> > used if the package does not install the file or there are changes 
> > desired to the .desktop file (such as add/removing categories, etc). 
> > desktop-file-validate MAY be used instead if the .desktop file's 
> > content/location does not need modification.  Here are some examples 
> > of usage:
> >  >>
> >
> > * Add the following example:
> >
> > <<
> >   desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop
> >  >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>  
>  Any word on this?  Can this be voted on?
>   
Looks good (and reasonable) to me.

Regards,

Hans