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

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Sat Jan 24 11:17:13 PST 2015


On 24-01-2015 15:37, Armin K. wrote:
> 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.
>>

Just to inform that your email is blocked from now on.

Remember where I asked you to go? Please stay there and don't come back.

Bye.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list