some comments on the desktop files section and proposed amendmends

[Matthias Clasen]

>  If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also 
include a properly installed .desktop file. For the purposes
>  of these guidelines, a GUI application is defined as any application 
which draws an X window and runs from within that
>  window. 
This is just not right. xeyes draws an X window - do you want a desktop 
file for it ?! xev draws an X window, too.
nautilus is certainly a GUI application - do you want to see it in the 
menus ? On the other hand, I can easily imagine
non-GUI applications that may deserve a place on the menus.

IMO this whole sentence should be nuked and replaced by something like:

If a package contains an application that users would expect to find in 
the panel menus, it needs to include a properly
installed .desktop file.

>  Installed .desktop files MUST follow the [[WWW] desktop-entry-spec 
<http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-la...>],

paying particular attention to validating correct usage
>  of Name, GenericName
> <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GenericName>;,  
[[WWW] Categories 
<http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html>], [[WWW] 
StartupNotify 
<http://www.freedesktop.org/Standards/startup-notification-spec>] entries.

A number of comments on this:

1) The desktop-entry-spec doesn't acutally define correct usage of Name 
and GenericName, all it does is giving a single
 example of how you could use these fields.

2) While I can see where this is coming from, and may even sympathize 
with a "correct usage" of Name and GenericName,
simply decreeing that it has to be so is not going to make it happen. 
Packagers really cannot do anything to enforce
"correct usage", because doing so would require them to speak all the 
40+ languages in which these locale strings are
typically translated.

Finally, I think it would be beneficial to mention nimetypes and 
update-desktop-database in this section.

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 22:18 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>   > If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also
>
>  include a properly installed .desktop file. For the purposes
>   > of these guidelines, a GUI application is defined as any application 
>  which draws an X window and runs from within that
>   > window.
>  
>  This is just not right. xeyes draws an X window - do you want a desktop 
>  file for it ?! xev draws an X window, too.
>  nautilus is certainly a GUI application - do you want to see it in the 
>  menus ? On the other hand, I can easily imagine
>  non-GUI applications that may deserve a place on the menus. 
Take a deep breath. Use your brain. Use your best judgement. :)

A child might want to run xeyes from the menu. A developer may want to
launch xev from the menu. There probably isn't anyone who would want to
launch nautilus from a menu.

The guidelines don't say that only GUI apps get menu entries. If you
have a non-GUI app that merits a menu entry, you're certainly permitted
to add it.

And if you think you have an exception, rather than being outraged,
merely point out that you think you have a corner case. A good
percentage of the time: you're right, and its ok.

Of course, in your specific examples, I disagree with you on 2/3. :)

>  IMO this whole sentence should be nuked and replaced by something
> like:
>  
>  If a package contains an application that users would expect to find in 
>  the panel menus, it needs to include a properly
>  installed .desktop file. 
Ah yes. The psychic ability to read the user's mind. IMHO, it is far
simpler, and more broadly correct as we have it. It also involves less
assumptions on the part of the packager as to what the user
wants/needs/expects.

>   > Installed .desktop files MUST follow the [[WWW]
> desktop-entry-spec 
>
> <http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-la...>],
>
>  paying particular attention to validating correct usage
>   > of Name, GenericName <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GenericName>;, 
>  [[WWW] Categories 
>  <http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html>], [[WWW] 
>  StartupNotify 
>  <http://www.freedesktop.org/Standards/startup-notification-spec>] entries.
>  
>  A number of comments on this:
>  
>  1) The desktop-entry-spec doesn't acutally define correct usage of Name 
>  and GenericName, all it does is giving a single
>   example of how you could use these fields. 
Fair enough. This is our attempt to follow upstream specifications, if
the desktop-entry-spec needs some love, perhaps it should be taken up
with the spec authors? We could always provide some more correct
examples in our desktop guidelines.

>  2) While I can see where this is coming from, and may even sympathize
>
>  with a "correct usage" of Name and GenericName,
>  simply decreeing that it has to be so is not going to make it happen.
>  Packagers really cannot do anything to enforce
>  "correct usage", because doing so would require them to speak all the 
>  40+ languages in which these locale strings are
>  typically translated. 
Hmm. While translations are certainly a concern, are the desktop files
really static and eternally unchanging documents? 

>  Finally, I think it would be beneficial to mention nimetypes and 
>  update-desktop-database in this section. 
Seems reasonable, do you have a draft for specific changes?

Thanks,

~spot

[Matthias Clasen]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>  Take a deep breath. Use your brain. Use your best judgement. :)
>
>     
Sure, I do that. And _I_ understand that the packaging guidelines are 
just guidelines.
But a considerable number of reviewers will take a sentence that says  
"any package
that installs a GUI application needs to install a  desktop file" 
literally and block the
review on the "violation". I  wished the  guidelines were less apodictic 
when there is
real room for judgement.

> > IMO this whole sentence should be nuked and replaced by something
> like:
> >
> > If a package contains an application that users would expect to find in 
> > the panel menus, it needs to include a properly
> > installed .desktop file.
> >     
>
>  Ah yes. The psychic ability to read the user's mind. IMHO, it is far
>  simpler, and more broadly correct as we have it. It also involves less
>  assumptions on the part of the packager as to what the user
>  wants/needs/expects.
>     
This is not about reading the users mind, this is about clarifying the 
purpose of the
desktop file (making the application appear in the menu).
> > 2) While I can see where this is coming from, and may even
> sympathize 
> > with a "correct usage" of Name and GenericName,
> > simply decreeing that it has to be so is not going to make it happen.
> > Packagers really cannot do anything to enforce
> > "correct usage", because doing so would require them to speak all the 
> > 40+ languages in which these locale strings are
> > typically translated.
> >     
>
>  Hmm. While translations are certainly a concern, are the desktop files
>  really static and eternally unchanging documents? 
>     
Desktop files can be changed, but since this involves translations, 
these changes
need to happen upstream. There is not much point in adding further 
frustration to
reviews by adding "must " items to the checklist over which the packager 
doesn't have any control.

Also,  the  approach of --copy-generic-name-to-name was not just picked 
to annoy
you, but to implement a certain user experience. If we just declare 
copying generic
names illegal without implementing an alternative way to get the desired 
user
experience, we will be thrown back to the days of menus full of 
undecipherable
program names.
> > Finally, I think it would be beneficial to mention nimetypes and
>
> > update-desktop-database in this section.
> >     
>
>  Seems reasonable, do you have a draft for specific changes?
>
>     
"If a desktop file contains a Mimetype field, you must call 
update-desktop-database
in %post and %postun. See [...] for details."

[Till Maas]

On Thursday 08 February 2007 05:11, Matthias Clasen wrote:

>  Sure, I do that. And _I_ understand that the packaging guidelines
> are
>  just guidelines.
>  But a considerable number of reviewers will take a sentence that says
>  "any package
>  that installs a GUI application needs to install a  desktop file"
>  literally and block the
>  review on the "violation". I  wished the  guidelines were less apodictic
>  when there is
>  real room for judgement. 
Maybe it is because these reviewers do not really know where, which guidelines 
can be violated safely. It this case it may help to gather these rules in a 
BestPractices document.

Regards,
Till

[Rex Dieter]

Matthias Clasen wrote:

>  Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: 
> > Seems reasonable, do you have a draft for specific changes?
> >
> >   
>  "If a desktop file contains a Mimetype field, you must call
>  update-desktop-database
>  in %post and %postun. See [...] for details." 
That's already included in the guidelines,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
though it could/should be cross referenced for easier finding.

-- Rex

[Matthias Clasen]

Rex Dieter wrote:
>  That's already included in the guidelines,
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
>  though it could/should be cross referenced for easier finding.
>     
Exactly. Thats what i tried to hint at with my "See [...]"

[Rex Dieter]

Matthias Clasen wrote:

>  Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> > That's already included in the guidelines,
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
> > though it could/should be cross referenced for easier finding.
> >   
>  
>  Exactly. Thats what i tried to hint at with my "See [...]" 
Agreed, though I'd argue not to add the implementation details, but only
provide the cross-reference link.

-- Rex

[Rex Dieter]

Rex Dieter wrote:

>  Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>
> >> That's already included in the guidelines,
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
> >> though it could/should be cross referenced for easier finding.
> >>   
> > 
> > Exactly. Thats what i tried to hint at with my "See [...]"
>  
>  Agreed, though I'd argue not to add the implementation details, but only
>  provide the cross-reference link. 
PC folks: I don't consider simply adding navigation/cross-reference links to
be something worth making a separate proposal/vote for.  Can we "just do
it"?  

-- Rex

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 08 February 2007 11:22, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  PC folks: I don't consider simply adding
> navigation/cross-reference links
>  to be something worth making a separate proposal/vote for.  Can we "just do
>  it"? 
Just do it.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter
> <rdieter(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; writes: 
RD> Can we "just do it"?

For the love of all that is good, please save us more discussion and
just do it.

 - J<

[Rex Dieter]

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter
> <rdieter(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; writes:
>  
>  RD> Can we "just do it"?
>  
>  For the love of all that is good, please save us more discussion and
>  just do it. 
It shall be done (might have to wait until after FESCo meeting).

-- Rex

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:22 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Rex Dieter wrote:
>  
>  > Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  > 
>  >> Rex Dieter wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> That's already included in the guidelines,
>  >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
>  >>> though it could/should be cross referenced for easier finding.
>  >>>   
>  >> 
>  >> Exactly. Thats what i tried to hint at with my "See [...]"
>  > 
>  > Agreed, though I'd argue not to add the implementation details, but only
>  > provide the cross-reference link.
>  
>  PC folks: I don't consider simply adding navigation/cross-reference links to
>  be something worth making a separate proposal/vote for.  Can we "just do
>  it"?   
+1 (for both "xref without voting" and "add an xref to desktop files
policy"  if voting is needed.)

-Toshio