A software center for Fedora
a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Dec 7 20:50:01 UTC 2011
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 02:23:05PM +0100, Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 03/12/2011 alle 22.58 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi ha scritto:
> > Yep. This is a pseudo-bug. Because of the way people have been
> > interpreting the spec for .desktop files, all of these provide .desktop
> > files where the name is "Terminal". So they're all placed on the same page.
> > This could be fixed in the .desktop files (Judging from past experience,
> > I think that's a losing effort). Or someone could code up some other ways
> > of extracting and reconciling this information. There are other things that
> > could be enhanced in this. For instance, there's currently no extraction or
> > recording of information about applications that lack a .desktop file.
> That's wrong, as explain by Freedesktop menu spec. You should group
> applications according to the desktop file id, which is the desktop file
> path, minus /usr/share/applications, with .desktop stripped and with /
> replaced by -. This way, gnome-terminal (which
> has /usr/share/applications/gnome-terminal.desktop) becomes
> gnome-terminal, while konsole (which
> has /usr/share/applications/kde4/konsole.desktop) becomes kde4-konsole,
> and no conflicts are possible (otherwise, you would get a menu conflict
> and/or a rpm file conflict).
> Name, GenericName, X-GNOME-FullName, etc. are user visible strings and
> should not be used as identifiers.
Except.. the URL is for a user visible string (just like a menu entry). At
least, that's what I think the intention was. We can ask mbacovsk (CC'd)
if that was in fact intentional. If not, feel free to change it.
> > > As for repodata, you mention tags, but I can't find them here, in
> > > primary, comps or other (and I don't see anything else in mirrors).
> > >
> > I hit a mirror and browsed around. Here's the one for the F16 x86_64 update
> > repo:
> > http://mirrors.xmission.com/fedora/updates/16/x86_64/repodata/pkgtags.sqlite.gz
> Interesting. In fact, the file exists, but only for updates repo, not
> for fedora. Is there a reason for that?
> (I'm looking at
Not sure. Maybe one of the rel-eng's would know the answer to that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20111207/16af8767/attachment.bin
More information about the devel