[blfs-dev] [..] r15309 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome xfce/core

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Sat Jan 24 10:16:57 PST 2015


On 24-01-2015 13:59, Armin K. wrote:
> On 01/24/2015 01:44 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> On 13-01-2015 09:26, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>> On 13-01-2015 09:20, Armin K. wrote:
>>>> On 01/13/2015 01:17 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>>>> On 13-01-2015 09:00, Armin K. wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/10/2015 02:19 PM, fernando at higgs.linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
>>>>>>> Author: fernando
>>>>>>> Date: Sat Jan 10 05:19:07 2015
>>>>>>> New Revision: 15309
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> Update to Thunar-1.6.4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified:
>>
>>>>>>>    trunk/BOOK/xfce/core/thunar.xml
>>
>>>>>>> Modified: trunk/BOOK/xfce/core/thunar.xml
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- trunk/BOOK/xfce/core/thunar.xml	Sat Jan 10 04:59:42 2015	(r15308)
>>>>>>> +++ trunk/BOOK/xfce/core/thunar.xml	Sat Jan 10 05:19:07 2015	(r15309)
>>>>>>> @@ -114,7 +114,9 @@
>>>>>>>        commands:
>>>>>>>      </para>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> -<screen><userinput>./configure --prefix=/usr \
>>>>>>> +<screen><userinput>sed -i 's/System;//' Thunar.desktop.in.in &&
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +./configure --prefix=/usr \
>>
>>>>>>>      <title>Command Explanations</title>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> +    <para>
>>>>>>> +      <command>sed -i 's/System;//' Thunar.desktop.in.in</command>: Move
>>>>>>> +      <application>Thunar</application> menu entry to the
>>>>>>> +      <quote>utilities</quote> submenu.
>>>>>>> +    </para>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any specific reason for this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>>>> Same question: Why is this change necessary? What were you trying to fix?
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious what is the issue without the sed. You don't explain "it
>>>> does this because *that*" ... Missing the second part.
>>
>> We have the following in PCManFM:
>>
>> "sed -i ...: Fixes submenu for PCManFM entry. "
>>
>> Without the sed, the application appears under the system sub-menu.
>>
> 
> Yes, as it was intended, because the spec says FileManager and
> TerminalEmulator belong in the System section.
> 
> See for yourself:
> 
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-1.0.html#category-registry
> 
> Scroll down and find "FileManager" - it specifies System;FileTools,
> where "FileTools" is category just above FileManager and specifies
> "Utility or System", so reading further it comes to
> 
> FileManager "System;Utility;" or "System;System;" - in both cases
> "System" is in the first place and maintainers know that and have
> specified it like that.

And is clearly wrong. Some idiot wrote that because it came with the
system, in Windows.

> Same goes for TerminalEmulator (right below the FileManager) and I'm
> speaking about LXTerminal now.

Although I agree that it is a system tool, most, if not all devs, use it
as file manager, to run the programs, to display images (feh, display),
and many other uses. Thus for BLFS I still think it should be in Utilities.

> In the end, I come back to my original question, but a little rephrased:
> Why did you change upstream default for something without an explanation
> on _why_ it was done like we do for many seds in the book, as the
> current explanation only tells what it does, not why it's needed (and it
> isn't needed at all, I trust upstream maintainers know what they are doing).

http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-1.0.html#category-registry

I completely disagree with this standard. File manager is what an
administrator dislikes but the first thing a user searches.

I don't remember any distribution that uses file manager in system.

Same for terminal emulators.

BLFS will be special, in this case.

Therefore, I'm not going to modify that, I disagree and have many other
things to do.

But I don't mind if somebody takes the trouble of undoing it.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list