[Gpe-list] gpe-irc .desktop file
damarlin at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 18:00:44 CEST 2008
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 09:29 -0500, D. Marlin wrote:
>> Neil Williams wrote:
>>> 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.
GPE fails validity checks for me as well, which is why I proposed
changing it to X-GPE (the X- in front of anything lets it pass...
>> 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
> categories. ;-)
No, both System and Settings are legitimate categories, but the desktop
gives priority to System, and the panel app launcher give priority to
Settings (or so it appears). I think they should be consistent as to
which category gets priority (if both are used), but that's JMHO.
I have not found where the implementation specifics are defined, so when
two or more (legitimate) categories are used does the menu system:
1) include the item in the first category listed
2) include the item in the last category listed
3) include the item in _all_ categories listed
4) some other logic (or just depends on the menu system)?
>>>> Making the following change eliminates those warnings:
>>> I'd prefer:
>> 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).
As I said, I have no preference. I'm just trying to see it from all
perspectives and keep an open mind.
>>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.
>> What window manager (and version) is being used for the
>> embedded/GPE OS?
> matchbox - same version as already in Debian.
I am currently working with:
from matchbox-project.org. If I'm following your links correctly, you
are using roughly the same versions.
> Emdebian is embedded Debian - same packages, same versions, same Debian
More information about the Gpe-list