[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Comments on VFolder spec

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 12:19:22PM -0700, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> Education - Educational software

Adding this to the list

> KDE - KDE based application
> QT - Qt (but not KDE) based application
> GNOME - GNOME based application
> GTK - GTK (but not GNOME) based application

I also added Motif

> Text - Text/console based application.

Added, but changed to Console, to make it less confusing with TextEditor

> X - Graphical application not based on GTK or QT.

I haven't added this.  Basically I think it's superflous.  I think we should
assume a graphical application by default unless 'Console' is also among the
Categories.  It will also make it more natural to add other 'toolkit/desktop'
based keywords since otherwise they might have previously fallen into the 'X'

> I don't like the approach that every shared standard that we come up with 
> defines its own locations. In KDE we define eveything relative to $KDEDIR(S), 
> if we can create something like $FREEDESKTOP_DIR(S) then we can spec 
> everything relative to that and we don't need a set of env.vars for every 
> spec that we are going to come up with.

This may be a good idea.  Basically it would then search (in addition to
/usr/share/applications) all <prefix>/share/applications where <prefix> would
come from FREEDESKTOP_DIRS.  (Btw, is there a need for two such env vars (DIRS vs.
DIR ???)

Do you think this should go into the spec, and if so, should it complement or
replace the DESKTOP_FILE_PATH?  Currently I think DESKTOP_FILE_PATH is more
flexible, since it can be ANY directory.  But I suppose that most
people/systems wouldn't have to define DESKTOP_FILE_PATH and would just


George <jirka 5z com>
   Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
                       -- Napoleon

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]