[Gpe-list] gpe-irc .desktop file

[D. Marlin]

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... 
proposed extension).

>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>   -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).

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.

Reasonable point.

	:

>> 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:

   matchbox-window-manager 1.2
   matchbox-desktop 0.9.1
   matchbox-panel 0.9.3

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
> quality.
> 
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/matchbox.html
> 
> http://www.emdebian.org/packages/search.php?distro=unstable&package=matchbox
>