Bugs in default GNOME etch?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Luca Capello
Hello,

first of all, I posted to d-d because I think the problem is not
restricted to GNOME, but if I'm wrong, please continue this discussion
to debian-gtk-gnome (which I cc:ed) and cc: me please (not needed for
d-d, I read it).

I installed etch as described at bug #406026 [1] and as it's quite a
long time since I used a GNOME system I played with it for a while,
IMHO getting in touch with different bugs, even if quite all minor.

NB, I didn't checked if all of these "bugs" have already been
    reported, so in case just ignore them :-)

1) some entries in the Debian menu lack the icon:
     evince, yelp, sound-juicer, gnome-cups-manager (both entries),
     gnome-utils (gnome-screenshot), gucharmap, foomatic-gui,
     gnome-system-monitor, grdesktop, gsynaptics, ekiga

2) the Debian menu requires xpm icons [2] and in fact only 4 packages
   have icons in the png format (ekiga, evince, gimp, gnomemeeting),
   but for some packages the xpm icon is really bad:
     gnome-utils (gnome-system-log, gnome-search-tool, gnome-floppy,
     gnome-dictionary), gnome-system-tools (all), gdm, gcalctool,
     bug-buddy, gnome-terminal, gnome-control-center

   Is there a practical reason for requesting xpm icons?  No need to
   explain if an answer already exists, but I cannot find it.

3) there are different icons for the same entry in the GNOME
   Applications list and the Debian menu:
     liferea, gnome-utils (gnome-system-log, gnome-search-tool),
     xsane, eog, gnome-media (grecord), gnome-baker, totem

   IMHO the icon should be the same if the program is the same, no
   matter which WM is in use.

4) evince doesn't appear by default on the GNOME Applications list (it
   happened on three different installations).  Maybe it's not the
   only one, but I cannot find any others.

5) some programs aren't present in the Debian menu:
     alacarte, gnome-btdownload
   
6) gnome-panel gives an .xsession-errors because "Unable to open
   desktop file epiphany.desktop for panel launcher".  This is normal
   as epiphany isn't installed by default, but I'd suggest to install
   the firefox.desktop instead.

7) why still Gnomemeeting by default instead of Ekiga (which AFAIK is
   the default VoIP client since GNOME 2.14)?

8) the gnomebaker window doesn't start big enough to include all the
   buttons (this is clearly a bug, which strangely hasn't been
   reported yet).

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes:
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=yes&bug=406026
[2] http://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30046/2/menu-one-file.html#s3.7

attachment0 (194 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Joey Hess
Luca Capello wrote:
> 7) why still Gnomemeeting by default instead of Ekiga (which AFAIK is
>    the default VoIP client since GNOME 2.14)?

This is fixed in gnome-desktop-environment 1:2.14.3.5, which is due to
reach etch in 2 days, assuming a freeze exception is requested and
granted for the new version.

--
see shy jo

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Josselin Mouette
In reply to this post by Luca Capello
Le mardi 16 janvier 2007 à 02:46 +0100, Luca Capello a écrit :
>    Is there a practical reason for requesting xpm icons?  No need to
>    explain if an answer already exists, but I cannot find it.

This is because some menu systems don't understand other formats.

> 4) evince doesn't appear by default on the GNOME Applications list (it
>    happened on three different installations).  Maybe it's not the
>    only one, but I cannot find any others.

IIRC this is intentional, as evince is a viewer that should only invoked
from programs that have something to view (nautilus, epiphany,
evolution...)

> 6) gnome-panel gives an .xsession-errors because "Unable to open
>    desktop file epiphany.desktop for panel launcher".  This is normal
>    as epiphany isn't installed by default, but I'd suggest to install
>    the firefox.desktop instead.

Epiphany is not installed by default? If this is the case, I consider it
a very important bug in debian-installer.

Looking at the gnome-desktop task, it installs gnome-desktop-environment
and firefox-gnome-support. Besides, gnome-desktop-environment depends on
epiphany-browser | gnome-www-browser, the latter being provided by
firefox-gnome-support. In this case, I don't know what aptitude does,
but if epiphany doesn't get installed in the end this is *wrong*. The
GNOME desktop as a whole is configured to use epiphany, which has decent
desktop integration, which firefox/iceweasel has not.

Can anyone in debian-boot confirm that the aptitude behaviour leads to
epiphany not being installed? If this the case, what solution would you
suggest? (The obvious solution of not installing the ugly
firefox/iceweasel and confusing users with two browsers having been
repeatedly refused by the d-i team.)

> 7) why still Gnomemeeting by default instead of Ekiga (which AFAIK is
>    the default VoIP client since GNOME 2.14)?

This should be fixed in meta-gnome2 1:2.14.3.5.

--
 .''`.
: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Eddy Petrișor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> 6) gnome-panel gives an .xsession-errors because "Unable to open
>>    desktop file epiphany.desktop for panel launcher".  This is normal
>>    as epiphany isn't installed by default, but I'd suggest to install
>>    the firefox.desktop instead.
>
> Epiphany is not installed by default? If this is the case, I consider it
> a very important bug in debian-installer.

Hmm, AFAIR, it wasn't two weeks ago, and I thought *this* was intentional and was happy about it.

> Looking at the gnome-desktop task, it installs gnome-desktop-environment
> and firefox-gnome-support. Besides, gnome-desktop-environment depends on
> epiphany-browser | gnome-www-browser, the latter being provided by
> firefox-gnome-support. In this case, I don't know what aptitude does,
> but if epiphany doesn't get installed in the end this is *wrong*. The
> GNOME desktop as a whole is configured to use epiphany, which has decent
> desktop integration, which firefox/iceweasel has not.
>
> Can anyone in debian-boot confirm that the aptitude behaviour leads to
> epiphany not being installed? If this the case, what solution would you
> suggest? (The obvious solution of not installing the ugly
> firefox/iceweasel and confusing users with two browsers having been
> repeatedly refused by the d-i team.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFrJliY8Chqv3NRNoRAqn/AJ9tTzxLRGo24su5MnUSMdsDccuWdwCfbsl3
UA/BSmPJpe0PxNfDw/9ZBJc=
=i7Eo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 16 janvier 2007 à 11:22 +0200, Eddy Petrișor a écrit :
> > Epiphany is not installed by default? If this is the case, I consider it
> > a very important bug in debian-installer.
>
> Hmm, AFAIR, it wasn't two weeks ago, and I thought *this* was intentional and was happy about it.

On our side, it is not. We have spent efforts in providing an integrated
environment, and this includes epiphany as the default browser, not a
half-assed browser designed for Windows and customised with GNOME
colors.

Until recently, d-i was installing both epiphany and firefox, the reason
being "Windows users know firefox". If epiphany doesn't get installed
anymore, this is making things even worse. And now that we have moved to
iceweasel, the Windows argument doesn't hold anymore.

--
 .''`.
: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt-3
In reply to this post by Luca Capello
Luca Capello <[hidden email]> writes:
> 2) the Debian menu requires xpm icons [2] and in fact only 4 packages
>    have icons in the png format (ekiga, evince, gimp, gnomemeeting),

To be fair, the .png icon referenced by the evince menu file doesn't
exist...

> 4) evince doesn't appear by default on the GNOME Applications list (it
>    happened on three different installations).  Maybe it's not the
>    only one, but I cannot find any others.

That is intentional, as evince is not intended to be invoked
directly. Other applications (such as browsers, nautilus) can and will
open files in evince when the user is trying to see a
PDF/PS/DjVu/DVI/... file.

Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
2: objektorientiert
       Den Code habe ich von meinem Vorgaenger geerbt. (Kristian Köhntopp)

attachment0 (194 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Loïc Minier
In reply to this post by Luca Capello
        Hi,

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007, Luca Capello wrote:
> first of all, I posted to d-d because I think the problem is not
> restricted to GNOME, but if I'm wrong, please continue this discussion
> to debian-gtk-gnome (which I cc:ed) and cc: me please (not needed for
> d-d, I read it).

 Indeed, not only GNOME is concerned, but bug reports are often
 reassigned when needs be, so next time you discover some issues you may
 want to fill them directly as you discover them in the BTS.  However,
 there's some room for discussion for the class of bugs you are
 reporting here.

> 1) some entries in the Debian menu lack the icon
> 2) the Debian menu requires xpm icons [2] and in fact only 4 packages
>    have icons in the png format (ekiga, evince, gimp, gnomemeeting),
>    but for some packages the xpm icon is really bad
> 3) there are different icons for the same entry in the GNOME
>    Applications list and the Debian menu

 These issues are connected; what you describe is a general problem I
 have with the Debian menu: its XPM requirement and its duplication of
 the menu entries makes it a maintenance burden.

 I can imagine technical solutions to these problems, such as a) making
 XPM optional and automatically generating it when it's not available
 (yes, this might result in an ugly icon in some cases, but at least we
 will have an ugly icon vaguely ressembling the icon, and it might also
 result in nicer icons for PNG capable menu displays), b) using the
 .desktop files upstream provides to automatically register entries in
 the Debian menu (Note that the inverse process exists in menu-xdg :).

 Without this, Debian menu support in Debian packages will always lag
 behind as upstream updates its .desktop files, icons etc. or
 adds/remove programs.


 Another personal problem I have with the Debian menu is that it's
 slightly cluttered with entries useless to me, and it's also of no use
 along of the GNOME menu under GNOME.  This doesn't motivate me (and I
 expect other people) to fix it.

 So, basically, I think Debian menu support for GNOME apps is very low
 priority, and would have deeper problems to solve first.

> 4) evince doesn't appear by default on the GNOME Applications list (it
>    happened on three different installations).  Maybe it's not the
>    only one, but I cannot find any others.

 This is on purpose, the .desktop file has "NoDisplay=true" because it
 is expected that you never need to launch evince, but you simply open
 documents from nautilus or your browser and this spawns evince.  This
 is to not clutter the GNOME menu.

 (So, not a bug, a feature.)

> 5) some programs aren't present in the Debian menu:
>      alacarte, gnome-btdownload

 No idea about these.  You're welcome to file bugs if it makes sense to
 have them in the menu.

> 6) gnome-panel gives an .xsession-errors because "Unable to open
>    desktop file epiphany.desktop for panel launcher".  This is normal
>    as epiphany isn't installed by default, but I'd suggest to install
>    the firefox.desktop instead.

 I did not see the discussion which lead to the choice of iceweasel as
 the default browser, and I think it would have been a worthwhile
 discussion to make publicly.

 This appears to be Ubuntu's choice as well, but I think the arguments
 brought up back then in the Ubuntu discussion don't apply anymore or
 don't apply to Debian (Epiphany is now as usable as IceWeasel is, and
 the name "Firefox" is not an argument anymore for Debian).

 I suppose what you're seeing is the result of a discrepancy between the
 default panel layout offered in the gnome-panel package and the
 installed packages.

 Perhaps this matter should be discussed on the debian-desktop@ list, at
 least I wish we would have a strong Debian Desktop decision-taking
 body so we could share ideas and goals and march in the same direction.

 Feel free to file a bug against either tasksel or gnome-panel depending
 on whether you would like to see iceweasel or epiphany on the default
 desktop.

> 7) why still Gnomemeeting by default instead of Ekiga (which AFAIK is
>    the default VoIP client since GNOME 2.14)?

 This is fixed in the gnome-desktop-environment package, but did not
 migrate to testing yet, will happen in a couple of days.

> 8) the gnomebaker window doesn't start big enough to include all the
>    buttons (this is clearly a bug, which strangely hasn't been
>    reported yet).

 Completely unrelated, please see with the gnomebaker package's BTS /
 maintainer.

   Bye,
--
Loïc Minier <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Luca Capello
In reply to this post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt-3
Hello!

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:46:45 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Luca Capello <[hidden email]> writes:
>> 2) the Debian menu requires xpm icons [2] and in fact only 4
>>    packages have icons in the png format (ekiga, evince, gimp,
>>    gnomemeeting),
>
> To be fair, the .png icon referenced by the evince menu file doesn't
> exist...

I know and in fact I wrote at point 1:

 some entries in the Debian menu lack the icon:
   evince, yelp, sound-juicer, gnome-cups-manager (both entries),
   ^^^^^^
   gnome-utils (gnome-screenshot), gucharmap, foomatic-gui,
   gnome-system-monitor, grdesktop, gsynaptics, ekiga

Thus, evince Debian menu entry has two bugs: not an xpm icon and the
actual png icon is missing (the latter more important IMHO).

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

attachment0 (194 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Luca Capello
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
Hello!

NB, if you keep d-d as to: or cc:, please don't cc: me, I read the
list.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:11:36 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 16 janvier 2007 à 02:46 +0100, Luca Capello a écrit :
>> 6) gnome-panel gives an .xsession-errors because "Unable to open
>>    desktop file epiphany.desktop for panel launcher".  This is normal
>>    as epiphany isn't installed by default, but I'd suggest to install
>>    the firefox.desktop instead.
>
> Epiphany is not installed by default? If this is the case, I consider it
> a very important bug in debian-installer.
[...]
> The GNOME desktop as a whole is configured to use epiphany, which
> has decent desktop integration, which firefox/iceweasel has not.

I was also surprised that epiphany wasn't installed by default.

To be sure this is a *bug* (now I consider it for the reason below), I
installed a Debin etch with KDE via the full CD image [1].  Indeed, on
KDE Konqueror is installed by default and it's the default browser
(i.e. the one present in the status bar).  Thus, I don't understand
why Debian GNOME should rely on Iceweasel.

> Can anyone in debian-boot confirm that the aptitude behaviour leads to
> epiphany not being installed? If this the case, what solution would you
> suggest? (The obvious solution of not installing the ugly
> firefox/iceweasel and confusing users with two browsers having been
> repeatedly refused by the d-i team.)

I'd suggest both (i.e. DE's browser and Iceweasel), as it's the case
for Debian KDE.  The user will have the epiphany icon on the GNOME
panel, but Iceweasel will still be available in the GNOME menu.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes:
[1] http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/i386/iso-cd/debian-testing-i386-kde-CD-1.iso

attachment0 (194 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Loïc Minier
In reply to this post by Luca Capello
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007, Luca Capello wrote:

> >> 2) the Debian menu requires xpm icons [2] and in fact only 4
> >>    packages have icons in the png format (ekiga, evince, gimp,
> >>    gnomemeeting),
> > To be fair, the .png icon referenced by the evince menu file doesn't
> > exist...
> I know and in fact I wrote at point 1:
>  some entries in the Debian menu lack the icon:
>    evince, yelp, sound-juicer, gnome-cups-manager (both entries),
>    ^^^^^^
>    gnome-utils (gnome-screenshot), gucharmap, foomatic-gui,
>    gnome-system-monitor, grdesktop, gsynaptics, ekiga
> Thus, evince Debian menu entry has two bugs: not an xpm icon and the
> actual png icon is missing (the latter more important IMHO).

 Fixed in 0.4.0-5.

--
Loïc Minier <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

David Weinehall
In reply to this post by Loïc Minier
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:48:03AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
[snip]
> > 5) some programs aren't present in the Debian menu:
> >      alacarte, gnome-btdownload
>
>  No idea about these.  You're welcome to file bugs if it makes sense to
>  have them in the menu.

gnome-btdownload:

"A simple Gnome interface designed as a mime-sink for BitTorrent files.
 gnome-btdownload allow a user to download files using bittorrent,
 a scatter-gather network.
 .
 Not a front-end, more-or-less just a session dialog. See bittorrent
 for more information."

I think the package description makes it pretty obvious why it's not
present in the menu.

alacarte:

"Alacarte is an easy-to-use menu editor for GNOME that can add
 and edit new entries and menus. It works with the freedesktop.org
 menu specification and should work with any desktop environment
 that uses the spec."

Presumably people that want to edit their menus can launch this
application using the launcher.  It's not really the average
everyday tool...

[snip]


PS: My vote for default GNOME browser definitely goes to Epiphany;
Firefox^WIceweasel comes nowhere close to feeling like a real GNOME
application.


Regards: David Weinehall
--
 /) David Weinehall <[hidden email]> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Julien Cristau-6
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 18:55:32 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:

> PS: My vote for default GNOME browser definitely goes to Epiphany;
> Firefox^WIceweasel comes nowhere close to feeling like a real GNOME
> application.
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2007/01/msg00952.html

Cheers,
Julien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 16 janvier 2007 à 18:59 +0100, Julien Cristau a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 18:55:32 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > PS: My vote for default GNOME browser definitely goes to Epiphany;
> > Firefox^WIceweasel comes nowhere close to feeling like a real GNOME
> > application.
> >
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2007/01/msg00952.html

Wow, that was fast. Thanks, Joey. You even added epiphany-extensions
before I had a chance to ask for it :)
--
 .''`.
: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Ross Burton
In reply to this post by David Weinehall
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 18:55 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:

> alacarte:
>
> "Alacarte is an easy-to-use menu editor for GNOME that can add
>  and edit new entries and menus. It works with the freedesktop.org
>  menu specification and should work with any desktop environment
>  that uses the spec."
>
> Presumably people that want to edit their menus can launch this
> application using the launcher.  It's not really the average
> everyday tool...
Isn't this invoked from right clicking on Applications?

Ross
--
Ross Burton                                 mail: [hidden email]
                                          jabber: [hidden email]
                                     www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF


signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Sven Arvidsson
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 18:44 +0000, Ross Burton wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 18:55 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > alacarte:
> >
> > "Alacarte is an easy-to-use menu editor for GNOME that can add
> >  and edit new entries and menus. It works with the freedesktop.org
> >  menu specification and should work with any desktop environment
> >  that uses the spec."
> >
> > Presumably people that want to edit their menus can launch this
> > application using the launcher.  It's not really the average
> > everyday tool...
>
> Isn't this invoked from right clicking on Applications?
It is if you are running gnome-panel 2.16, but not in 2.14 (Etch) I
think.

Anyway, I think the original poster complained about the lack of a menu
entry for Alacarte in the Debian menu system.

--
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key ID 760BDD22

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Tim Dijkstra
In reply to this post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt-3
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:55:53 +0100
Michael Banck <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:22:51PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:03:15 +0100
> > Loïc Minier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >  Just FYI, I *personally* would prefer an evince entry in the menu as
> > >  well, but I prefer keeping close to the usability policy defined by
> > >  upstream.
> >
> > Well we shouldn't keep ourselves hostage of stupid upstream behaviour,
> > should we?
>
> Contrary to us, GNOME (in this case RedHat) actually employs usability
> experts.  Who are we to think we know better?

You'll see that these so-called experts will be arguing next that
you're not supposed to launch it from a terminal and will move it from
the standard $PATH to /usr/lib/gnome or something....

grrr

Tim

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Bernhard R. Link-2
In reply to this post by Loïc Minier
* Lo?c Minier <[hidden email]> [070116 10:50]:
>  I can imagine technical solutions to these problems, such as a) making
>  XPM optional and automatically generating it when it's not available
>  (yes, this might result in an ugly icon in some cases, but at least we
>  will have an ugly icon vaguely ressembling the icon, and it might also
>  result in nicer icons for PNG capable menu displays),

You can just translate the icons yourself. If you consider them ugly,
just add a new field for "nice" icons and start persuade people to
tell their menu methods to use those settings first. (with most
every admin and most of the time even user can just change that with
a single edit of the menu-methods file).

> b) using the
>  .desktop files upstream provides to automatically register entries in
>  the Debian menu (Note that the inverse process exists in menu-xdg :).
>
>  Without this, Debian menu support in Debian packages will always lag
>  behind as upstream updates its .desktop files, icons etc. or
>  adds/remove programs.

Well, to be perhaps a bit too frank: a maintainer that cannot cope with
menu files should consider orphaning a package. If you do not even know
which programs appear and vanish, you simply have lost. And simply
copying upstream decisions for names and sections or even icons will
simply make out menu a total mess, as different upstreams will have
different rules.

I hope people will not suggest next to not follow FHS, but install
everything where upstream thinks is the best place to put it, as
Debian packages cleary lack behind because we don't just put it
whereever it ends up... </sarkasm>

Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Loïc Minier
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Lo?c Minier <[hidden email]> [070116 10:50]:
> >  I can imagine technical solutions to these problems, such as a) making
> >  XPM optional and automatically generating it when it's not available
> >  (yes, this might result in an ugly icon in some cases, but at least we
> >  will have an ugly icon vaguely ressembling the icon, and it might also
> >  result in nicer icons for PNG capable menu displays),
> You can just translate the icons yourself.

 I want to spare me the time to do the update manually, but you suggest
 I augment the amount of manual work.  Would the Debian menu system do
 this for me, I wouldn't have to.  I usually prefer it when machines do
 the repetitive instead of me.

>                                            If you consider them ugly,
> just add a new field for "nice" icons and start persuade people to
> tell their menu methods to use those settings first.

 Why reinvent the wheel in the Debian menu system?  Why would I want to
 convert nicely looking upstream icons to an old format which can only
 look uglier?  All desktop environments support pngs, and even svgs.
 And I do not benefit of the Debian menu system personally, I only see
 it as cluttering my GNOME menu, so I prefer spending my time in things
 which improve Debian as well, but which I enjoy doing and don't
 consider useless.

> > b) using the
> >  .desktop files upstream provides to automatically register entries in
> >  the Debian menu (Note that the inverse process exists in menu-xdg :).
> >
> >  Without this, Debian menu support in Debian packages will always lag
> >  behind as upstream updates its .desktop files, icons etc. or
> >  adds/remove programs.
>
> Well, to be perhaps a bit too frank: a maintainer that cannot cope with
> menu files should consider orphaning a package.

 I actually don't think orphaning packages make them any better.

 You're welcome to join pkg-gnome and fix the Debian menu entries.  In
 fact, any help is welcome, not just on fixing menu entries.  Hop in
 #gnome-debian on GIMPNet, and I'll be happy to guide you in
 participating to tasks of the team.

>                                                 If you do not even know
> which programs appear and vanish, you simply have lost.

 Sorry, but people make mistakes.  This is why we avoid duplicating data
 in databases, and we avoid duplicating code in programs.  I don't see
 why the Debian menu would be so special that it would require me to
 maintain menu entries in parallel to the .desktop files.


 You've taken the time to criticize my personal position with
 respect to the menu system, I suggest you also take the time to read
 the technical proposals I made to improve the menu system.
   The Debian menu system will not magically become useful to me, but at
 least it will automatically cover packages of maintainers which do not
 make it a priority to support the menu system fully in all their
 packages.

--
Loïc Minier <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Luca Capello
In reply to this post by Loïc Minier
Hello!

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:19:58 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007, Luca Capello wrote:
>> Thus, evince Debian menu entry has two bugs: not an xpm icon and
>> the actual png icon is missing (the latter more important IMHO).
>
> Fixed in 0.4.0-5.

You forgot to close bug #391194 [1].

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes:
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=391194

attachment0 (194 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?

Manoj Srivastava
In reply to this post by Loïc Minier
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:43:43 +0100, Loïc Minier <[hidden email]> said:

>  I don't see why the Debian menu would be so special that it would
>  require me to maintain menu entries in parallel to the .desktop
>  files.

        Because as a Debian maintainer of gnome programs that work
 even when you are not using gnome, you are not just supporting people
 who use gnome, you are supporting _all_ Debian users.

        Not all of us are using window managers that grok .desktop
 entries.  Indeed, I would think that instead of having gnome menus,
 kde menus, and Debian menus, we should dump the first two before we
 dump the latter, since the Debian menu is something that we control,
 and is something that benefits _all_ Debian users, not just a subset.

        manoj
--
What is now proved was once only imagin'd. William Blake
Manoj Srivastava <[hidden email]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

12