On Tuesday 31 December 2013 16:48:30 Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jerome Leclanche
wrote:
> >> So that detail should be in the menu spec, not the desktop file spec.
> >> I see no mention of TryExec i
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
>>
>> So that detail should be in the menu spec, not the desktop file spec.
>> I see no mention of TryExec in
>> http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-1.0.html
>
>
>
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> So that detail should be in the menu spec, not the desktop file spec.
> I see no mention of TryExec in
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-1.0.html
>
Speaking with my GNOME hat on, GNOME is now ignoring the menu spec
u
hi,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, at 6:05, David Faure wrote:
> So there is a valid use case for TryExec, but indeed we shouldn't
> recommend
> every application to use it, that would be wasteful and unnecessary.
This is exactly correct.
Cheers
___
xdg mailin
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:05 AM, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 December 2013 11:00:23 Jerome Leclanche wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Faure wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 31 December 2013 05:44:12 Ryan Lortie wrote:
>> >> hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, at 5:39, David Faure
On Tuesday 31 December 2013 11:00:23 Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Faure wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 December 2013 05:44:12 Ryan Lortie wrote:
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, at 5:39, David Faure wrote:
> >> > It is missing in many many
> >> > .desktop
>
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 December 2013 05:44:12 Ryan Lortie wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, at 5:39, David Faure wrote:
>> > It is missing in many many
>> > .desktop
>> > files, but this means solving this doesn't require a change in the spec,
On Tuesday 31 December 2013 05:44:12 Ryan Lortie wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, at 5:39, David Faure wrote:
> > It is missing in many many
> > .desktop
> > files, but this means solving this doesn't require a change in the spec,
> > it
> > only requires everyone to add that TryExec key in
hi,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, at 5:39, David Faure wrote:
> It is missing in many many
> .desktop
> files, but this means solving this doesn't require a change in the spec,
> it
> only requires everyone to add that TryExec key in most desktop files.
TryExec has a negative performance implication: y
On Sunday 29 December 2013 14:11:03 Ryan Lortie wrote:
> To me this looks like a really large amount of added complexity for
> little gain.
I agree.
Plus, having two complex commands in ExecWithNoFiles and ExecWithFiles
doesn't even help "looking up applications by executable name" (the use case
Le Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:15:23 +,
Jerome Leclanche a écrit :
> I'm editing the subject because we seem to be going back and forth on
> different points and it's leading to serious confusion.
>
> I remember TryExec now. TryExec partly fits one of my needs, although
> there remains the issue of
hi,
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 8:52, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On domingo, 29 de dezembro de 2013 13:35:31, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> > Yes, #3 was what I was aiming for. You brought some interesting other
> > solutions to the table (all of which are backwards incompatible
> > unfortunately)
>
> Why
On domingo, 29 de dezembro de 2013 13:35:31, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Yes, #3 was what I was aiming for. You brought some interesting other
> solutions to the table (all of which are backwards incompatible
> unfortunately)
Why would they be backwards incompatible? % followed by { isn't currently
Yes, #3 was what I was aiming for. You brought some interesting other
solutions to the table (all of which are backwards incompatible
unfortunately), but they give me the occasion to present something I
said I didn't want to mention quite yet but it seems relevant now.
Preface: Currently, %i is re
On domingo, 29 de dezembro de 2013 11:15:23, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I remember TryExec now. TryExec partly fits one of my needs, although
> there remains the issue of starting without args.
> Starting without args is something a lot of xdg implementers do:
> Menus, application runners, launchers
I'm editing the subject because we seem to be going back and forth on
different points and it's leading to serious confusion.
I remember TryExec now. TryExec partly fits one of my needs, although
there remains the issue of starting without args.
Starting without args is something a lot of xdg impl
16 matches
Mail list logo
