Per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FedoraDesktopEntryGuidelines: The vendor prefix (desktop-file-install --vendor=...) must be set to fedora".
I don't understand the rationale/motivation behind requiring '--vendor fedora'
I can, however, see that desktop-file-install's current implementation(*) of prepending %{vendor}- to the .desktop file name has some problems/issues: 1. .desktop filename now varies from upstream 2. --vendor may change when/if Extras bits are pulled into Core and/or RHEL. 3. *In particular*: when users start employing menu editors, since most(all?) of them base their customizations on the .desktop file name.
-- Rex
(*) If desktop-file-install's implementation instead followed something like kde's practice of using a vendor directory (e.g. /usr/share/applications/kde), then (1) and (3) would no longer be an issue.
Rex Dieter wrote:
- *In particular*: when users start employing menu editors, since
most(all?) of them base their customizations on the .desktop file name.
I stopped in mid-thought, sorry. The point of this is that menu editing will be troublesome/buggy when/if .desktop filenames change.
-- Rex
On 03/03/2006 10:47 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FedoraDesktopEntryGuidelines: The vendor prefix (desktop-file-install --vendor=...) must be set to fedora".
I don't understand the rationale/motivation behind requiring '--vendor fedora'
It should match the vendor of the .desktop file. If you are distributing a GNOME desktop file, it should be --vendor gnome. If there is no .desktop file and you write one, then it should be --vendor fedora.
The wiki should be updated to reflect this.
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 02:08 -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Some food for thought below.
If you are distributing a GNOME desktop file, it should be --vendor gnome.
What is "a GNOME desktop file"? A .desktop file included with an app that is distributed from gnome.org? A .desktop file for an app distributed from somewhere else but uses GNOME libraries? Something else?
If I can identify an upstream vendor prefix with sufficient confidence but make heavy modifications to the .desktop file they ship, should I preserve the upstream vendor prefix or change it?
If the upstream vendor changes, for example in the case of an app previously distributed by an "independent" vendor gets rolled into GNOME proper, should the vendor identifier of the .desktop file I ship change too?
If there is no .desktop file and you write one, then it should be --vendor fedora.
After the .desktop file I wrote and included in package version X gets included in the X+1 upstream version and I update the package to that, do I leave the desktop vendor prefix as is to "fedora" or sync it with the upstream vendor name?
The wiki should be updated to reflect this.
I don't think it's quite that clear cut.
GNOME and self-written .desktop files are from the easier end of cases even though as shown, they're not entirely trivial either, but there's lots of cases where upstream ships a .desktop file and inventing a sane vendor string would be harder.
Quite frankly, I think the "always use fedora" approach is a sufficiently low-problem one. Or maybe make it "if upstream doesn't clearly indicate their vendor identifier (eg. through a desktop-file-install invocation in their Makefiles), use fedora, and whatever you choose, make sure the vendor prefix won't change between package revisions".
See also the last two paragraphs of the "Merging" chapter at http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-latest.html#merge-algor...
Hi,
this discussion resulted in some recommendations in the guidelines and elsewhere, but old packages are supposed to keep any naming (vendor) they used for backwards compatibility with menu editors, correct?
I just removed the fedora- prefix from the smart package and Ville (correctly) raised the guidelines violation flag. While I just did the change w/o reading/understanding the compatibility note, afterwards I came up with similar reasoning as to why all packages should get fixed as Rex below. My main arguments in favour of properly fixing it are:
o EPEL support: I don't want to fork a package specfiles just for supporting a legacy buglet, nor do I want to overcomplicate it with checing for fedora vs rhel.
o buglet propagation: Most if not all packagers reuse their work. When I need a desktop/info install or something similar I cut and paste from one of my older packages, or perhaps from another good package. If such legacy buglets are kept then they get copied all along. Of course commenting would help.
All in all the pain with doing such a change is that some customized user menues may suddenly lose en entry, which the user can easily dnd back. Therefore I don't think it is worth while to keep the pain in the specfiles, instead upon updating of such a specfile it should be cleaned up desktop-file-wise.
What do you think?
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:47:47AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FedoraDesktopEntryGuidelines: The vendor prefix (desktop-file-install --vendor=...) must be set to fedora".
I don't understand the rationale/motivation behind requiring '--vendor fedora'
I can, however, see that desktop-file-install's current implementation(*) of prepending %{vendor}- to the .desktop file name has some problems/issues:
- .desktop filename now varies from upstream
- --vendor may change when/if Extras bits are pulled into Core and/or
RHEL. 3. *In particular*: when users start employing menu editors, since most(all?) of them base their customizations on the .desktop file name.
-- Rex
(*) If desktop-file-install's implementation instead followed something like kde's practice of using a vendor directory (e.g. /usr/share/applications/kde), then (1) and (3) would no longer be an issue.
Axel Thimm wrote:
this discussion resulted in some recommendations in the guidelines and elsewhere, but old packages are supposed to keep any naming (vendor) they used for backwards compatibility with menu editors, correct?
Yep, that is the primary(only?) motivation for keeping dir+vendor+desktop_file_name constant.
What do you think?
I agree with your sentiments. Package maintainers need to weigh the pros/cons of continuing the use of --vendor=fedora. If you feel the advantages of dropping it outweigh the disadvantage of possibly breaking users' customized menus, I see no problem with that.
-- Rex
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 09:03 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Package maintainers need to weigh the pros/cons of continuing the use of --vendor=fedora. If you feel the advantages of dropping it outweigh the disadvantage of possibly breaking users' customized menus, I see no problem with that.
Maybe it's just me, but the only case I can come up with at the moment that would warrant breaking people's menus or desktop icons would be if it'd be necessary in order to resolve a filename conflict.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Christopher Aillon -
Rex Dieter -
Ville Skyttä