--add-category X-Fedora option to desktop-file-install not necessary nor used.

[Jesse Keating]

This just adds noise and cruft to desktop files and spec files.  It is not 
used by anything.

Likewise --vendor fedora, but current desktop-file-install requires a vendor 
even though it isn't in use.  We'll be fixing that shortly though.

So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora line from 
the guidelines?

For the --vendor thing, it should probably stay in for now for older releases 
since I don't want to see our guidelines get too broken up between what is 
allowed or disallowed per release.

[Ville Skyttä]

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:47 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora line from 
> the guidelines?

+1

[Matthias Saou]

Ville Skyttä wrote :
> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:47 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora line from 
> > the guidelines?
>
> +1

Always count me in when it's about removing useless stuff! :-)

Matthias

[Rex Dieter]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> This just adds noise and cruft to desktop files and spec files.  It is not
> used by anything.
>
> Likewise --vendor fedora, but current desktop-file-install requires a
> vendor
> even though it isn't in use.  We'll be fixing that shortly though.

--vendor is recommended by the menu spec, but I'm not sure it should be
mandatory (I'm leaning toward no).
> So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora line
> from the guidelines?

I don't see the facility in this either, +1.

-- Rex

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "JK" == Jesse Keating  writes:

JK> So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora
JK> line from the guidelines?

Could we first understand why it was added in the first place?  There
must have been a reason, and knowing it should make it easy to decide
whether or not it's still reasonable.

- J

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 26 October 2006 11:05, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Could we first understand why it was added in the first place?  There
> must have been a reason, and knowing it should make it easy to decide
> whether or not it's still reasonable.

The best I've heard so far was carryover from fedora.us...

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "JK" == Jesse Keating  writes:

JK> The best I've heard so far was carryover from fedora.us...

I guess that if nobody knows of any reason why it should be there,
then it doesn't need to be there.

I'll +1 to this just on the general principle of removing needless
cruft; I've never understood why this might have been useful.

- J<

[Tom Callaway]

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:26 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "JK" == Jesse Keating  writes:
>
> JK> The best I've heard so far was carryover from fedora.us...
>
> I guess that if nobody knows of any reason why it should be there,
> then it doesn't need to be there.
>
> I'll +1 to this just on the general principle of removing needless
> cruft; I've never understood why this might have been useful.

+1. Let it die.

~spot

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:26:17 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "JK" == Jesse Keating  writes:
>
> JK> The best I've heard so far was carryover from fedora.us...
>
> I guess that if nobody knows of any reason why it should be there,
> then it doesn't need to be there.
>
> I'll +1 to this just on the general principle of removing needless
> cruft; I've never understood why this might have been useful.

IIRC, we've had the choice between:

X-Red-Hat-Base : for top-level menus, which we never set

X-Red-Hat-Extra : for everything else, but fedora.us was not Red Hat

So, fedora.us add-on packages introduced the X-Fedora category to allow
for future desktop menu features like adding/hiding/moving base and/or
add-on package entries (or entire hierarchies) based on special category
values.

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 26 October 2006 14:24, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> So, fedora.us add-on packages introduced the X-Fedora category to allow
> for future desktop menu features like adding/hiding/moving base and/or
> add-on package entries (or entire hierarchies) based on special category
> values.

Given this and Toshio's reply, I still don't see a need/reason to be using 
this right now.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:32:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So, fedora.us add-on packages introduced the X-Fedora category to allow
> > for future desktop menu features like adding/hiding/moving base and/or
> > add-on package entries (or entire hierarchies) based on special category
> > values.
>
> Given this and Toshio's reply, I still don't see a need/reason to be using 
> this right now.

Doesn't surprise me, since I didn't mean to justify the existance of X-Fedora.
Just explained its origin.

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:05 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "JK" == Jesse Keating  writes:
>
> JK> So for now, can I get votes to remove the --add-category X-Fedora
> JK> line from the guidelines?
>
> Could we first understand why it was added in the first place?  There
> must have been a reason, and knowing it should make it easy to decide
> whether or not it's still reasonable.

Fedora.us had this to say (From google cache):
http://tinyurl.com/yjxh6l

'''
All Categories must be from the standard set (see below), with the
exception that the "Application" category should be included where
appropriate (ie. for everything that is supposed to be shown in the
menus) for backwards compatibility even though it is not listed as a
standard category.

Additionally, all Fedora packages must contain the "X-Fedora" category.

For packages that exist in Red Hat Linux, the categories must be the
same as Red Hat's (+ X-Fedora).

For packages that are considered essential for end users, the
"X-Red-Hat-Base" Category must be added because that's currently the
only way to get them listed in the top level menus instead of "Extras"
on RH8 or "More foo..." on RH9.
'''

-Toshio