[Gpe-list] gpe-irc .desktop file
codehelp at debian.org
Tue Sep 2 17:05:30 CEST 2008
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 09:29 -0500, D. Marlin wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > I wish this list would accept GnuPG signatures - I keep wondering why my
> > posts don't show up!
> > It isn't just the spec, it is how things like X-GPE would be handled (or
> > not handled) by existing menu programs - including those outside GPE
> > itself.
> > So far, all the Debian versions of GPE packages have had the GPE
> > category removed with patches - I'd have to do the same with X-GPE.
> Why? Does the inclusion of an extra (not yet included) category have
> any impact on the existing menu programs? From what I have seen it is
> simply ignored.
'GPE' fails validity checks in Debian. Not sure of X-GPE would pass but
equally I see no use in having a GPE category.
> Ok, I'll admit that I don't know specifically how multiple categories
> are used by all the various menu systems (implementation specifics).
> From what I can tell, in Matchbox one of the subcategories will
> supersede the others, but priority in matchbox-desktop and
> matchbox-panel menu are not the same. for example, Login Setup (and
> Date & Time, and Look & Feel, and many others) is in System Tools on the
> desktop, but in Desktop Preferences in the Panel App Launcher.
> Is this a design decision or a bug?
A bug that can be eased (if not resolved) by not adding unrecognised
> >> Making the following change eliminates those warnings:
> >> -Categories=Application;IRC;GPE;
> >> +Categories=Network;IRCClient;GTK;X-GPE;
> > I'd prefer:
> > +Categories=Network;IRCClient;
> I have no preference, and will implement whatever the GPE maintainers
> prefer (as soon as I know what that is). :-)
> NOTE: direction requested.
> > (I see no need for GTK personally).
> I don't really see the need either, but GTK and QT are both included in
> the spec. I assumed they were there for _some_ purpose, but then
> again... :-/
That doesn't sound like a good reason to me (with my Debian hat on).
>From a Debian perspective - the only reason for Gtk or Qt is for
applications that can *ONLY* be used with the relevant environment. Once
you include other environments, Gtk or Qt make no sense at all.
> > I'd be surprised if the GPE or X-GPE is actually being used in any
> > application that actually creates the menus and further surprised if it
> > was expected to be useful to have a single overcrowded menu item.
> As far as I can tell it is not currently being used, but I could see it
> being used as a high level container which would include all the GPE
> apps grouped into the subcategories within a GPE menu, i.e.,
> GPE |
> Sound & Video
>From an Emdebian perspective, we aim to support mixing Debian and
Emdebian and having GPE as a separate category would be just weird.
I want Emdebian to be similar to Debian where possible - this includes
keeping Office stuff together and Network stuff together, even if the
user is able to mix Emdebian and Debian packages. There is no point in a
GPE tag if all it does is cause a duplicate menu structure when mixed
with non-GPE stuff. Without any non-GPE stuff, the GPE tag is completely
> I have seen KDE and GNOME menus divided that way in the past, but I
> don't know what the current wisdom is on this subject.
It is controversial in Debian and a PITA for people who want to use some
KDE apps and some GNOME apps alongside some Gtk stuff and a different
Don't assume that KDE vs GNOME is the only choice. Applications (where
installed) should still be under their relevant *functional* division,
not one dependent on their programming style or dependencies, IMHO.
> Very cool. What window manager (and version) is being used for the
> embedded/GPE OS?
matchbox - same version as already in Debian.
Emdebian is embedded Debian - same packages, same versions, same Debian
More information about the Gpe-list