* Lo?c Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070116 10:50]: > I can imagine technical solutions to these problems, such as a) making > XPM optional and automatically generating it when it's not available > (yes, this might result in an ugly icon in some cases, but at least we > will have an ugly icon vaguely ressembling the icon, and it might also > result in nicer icons for PNG capable menu displays),
You can just translate the icons yourself. If you consider them ugly, just add a new field for "nice" icons and start persuade people to tell their menu methods to use those settings first. (with most every admin and most of the time even user can just change that with a single edit of the menu-methods file). > b) using the > .desktop files upstream provides to automatically register entries in > the Debian menu (Note that the inverse process exists in menu-xdg :). > > Without this, Debian menu support in Debian packages will always lag > behind as upstream updates its .desktop files, icons etc. or > adds/remove programs. Well, to be perhaps a bit too frank: a maintainer that cannot cope with menu files should consider orphaning a package. If you do not even know which programs appear and vanish, you simply have lost. And simply copying upstream decisions for names and sections or even icons will simply make out menu a total mess, as different upstreams will have different rules. I hope people will not suggest next to not follow FHS, but install everything where upstream thinks is the best place to put it, as Debian packages cleary lack behind because we don't just put it whereever it ends up... </sarkasm> Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
