Per: "Base KDE applications (e.g. ksysguard) should have OnlyShowIn=KDE" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481739
Prompted me to try to come up with a good/simple guideline when it is and is not appropriate to use OnlyShowIn. Problem is, I couldn't, not easily or quickly anyway.
I thought I'd start on the packaging list first, any thoughts?
-- Rex
On 2009-01-28 at 10:53:05 -0500, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Per: "Base KDE applications (e.g. ksysguard) should have OnlyShowIn=KDE" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481739
Prompted me to try to come up with a good/simple guideline when it is and is not appropriate to use OnlyShowIn. Problem is, I couldn't, not easily or quickly anyway.
I thought I'd start on the packaging list first, any thoughts?
Well, let me turn that around, when is it ever appropriate to use "OnlyShowIn="? I can't think of a case where it would be appropriate, aside from some sort of KDE or GNOME Configuration utility (and by that, I mean "a utility for configuring KDE/GNOME").
~spot
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
I thought I'd start on the packaging list first, any thoughts?
Well, let me turn that around, when is it ever appropriate to use "OnlyShowIn="? I can't think of a case where it would be appropriate, aside from some sort of KDE or GNOME Configuration utility (and by that, I mean "a utility for configuring KDE/GNOME").
Part of the rationale is that someone on a system with both KDE and GNOME may not necessarily want to have two menu entries for an editor, two menu entries for a calculator, two menu entries for a terminal, etc.
Bill
On 2009-01-28 at 12:52:45 -0500, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
I thought I'd start on the packaging list first, any thoughts?
Well, let me turn that around, when is it ever appropriate to use "OnlyShowIn="? I can't think of a case where it would be appropriate, aside from some sort of KDE or GNOME Configuration utility (and by that, I mean "a utility for configuring KDE/GNOME").
Part of the rationale is that someone on a system with both KDE and GNOME may not necessarily want to have two menu entries for an editor, two menu entries for a calculator, two menu entries for a terminal, etc.
Would they really? They'd only have one .desktop file.
~spot
On 2009-01-28 at 13:09:06 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
"TC" == Tom "spot" Callaway <Tom> writes:
TC> Would they really? They'd only have one .desktop file.
Well, one Gnome calculator and one KDE calculator.
Okay, I understand this, but if I run GNOME, but want to install the KDE Calculator, I want it to show up in the menu.
I would much rather have some way of tagging a desktop file like this:
DesignedFor=KDE
Then, being able to set a custom configuration variable in the GNOME/KDE menu configuration tools that allows a blanket show/hide for things with that don't match my DesignedFor (along with allowing me to specifically check the box to let k3b override, because it is so much nicer than the GNOME burning program).
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org