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

Armin K. krejzi at email.com
Sat Jan 24 10:37:29 PST 2015


On 24.1.2015 19:16, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> On 24-01-2015 13:59, Armin K. wrote:
>> On 01/24/2015 01:44 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>

So, according to you people who develop various desktop/window 
manager/panels are idiots? Something's wrong there in my eyes.

>> 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.
>

Ah, there's my answer. The keywords are "I think". Yet you took the 
liberty several times to brag about my personal views for something 
(which people agree with from time to time), yet you dare to enforce 
your point of view to other people, even though a _standard_ which many 
people have agreed on says otherwise? Such ignorance ...

>> 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 disagree with many things, yet there's no need to be different when 
there's no need to.

> I don't remember any distribution that uses file manager in system.
>
> Same for terminal emulators.
>
> BLFS will be special, in this case.
>

Haven't find a single distro that doesn't use upstream defaults.

Debian and derivatives:

http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-xfce/desktop/trunk/thunar/debian/rules?view=markup
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-xfce/desktop/trunk/thunar/debian/patches/

Fedora:

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/Thunar.git/tree/

Archlinux:

https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/thunar

If you are going to state something, at least find a way to cover your 
claim. There is no single patch or sed or whatever that changes the 
upstream default, enforced by a standard for Thunar desktop file.

> 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.
>


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list