Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-27 Thread Joerg Barfurth
Lennon, I have to agree with Jeremy, that you miss the point here. Lennon Cook schrieb: Joerg Barfurth wrote: The problem is that it complicates things for users that simply want newly installed applications to be in their menu. I would think that these people would often be using

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-25 Thread Jeremy White
Sorry, I should have been clearer here. My point was not 'this is the users problem', but that it is a wider problem than can be solved in the menu spec, and is - IMO - not a problem that should be solved in several places. The right solution would be a distro that allows non-distro packages

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-24 Thread Joerg Barfurth
Lennon Cook wrote: On 3/24/06, Waldo Bastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just like #3, the application could install all its files within its own prefix. I tend to think that this is the best idea. The problem is that it complicates things for users that simply want newly installed

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-24 Thread Jeremy White
I would think that these people would often be using distro-provided tools for package management, so everything just working becomes the distros concern. Users who install non-distro packages usually have to put up with other things anyway. Sorry; I just cannot let that comment pass. The

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-24 Thread Lennon Cook
On 3/25/06, Jeremy White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that these people would often be using distro-provided tools for package management, so everything just working becomes the distros concern. Users who install non-distro packages usually have to put up with other things

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-23 Thread Mike Hearn
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:33:47 -0600, Jeremy White wrote: I think idea #3 is a neat idea (I'm a big fan of having all files isolated into their own /opt/blech directory), but I just don't see a practical road from here to there. And even if #3 is championed, a short term resolution is needed

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-23 Thread Waldo Bastian
On Thursday 23 March 2006 06:33, Jeremy White wrote: Okay, so this is my summary of this thread. The problem is that there is no specified place to write system wide data files (like menu files). Reference this page in the basedir-spec:

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-23 Thread Waldo Bastian
On Thursday 23 March 2006 09:14, Waldo Bastian wrote: On Thursday 23 March 2006 06:33, Jeremy White wrote: Okay, so this is my summary of this thread. The problem is that there is no specified place to write system wide data files (like menu files). Reference this page in the

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-23 Thread Jeremy White
1. My proposal to specify that the first writable directory in XDG_*_DIRS be used. The objections to this are probably best explained by Bart in this mail: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2006-February/007746.html Yes; that is a sound objection; using the first writable

Re: Menu spec update (summary; closure?)

2006-03-23 Thread Lennon Cook
On 3/24/06, Waldo Bastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just like #3, the application could install all its files within its own prefix. I tend to think that this is the best idea. If the user has specified a directory where a particular app should install, it should /not/ install any files outside