Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 05/09/2012 03:55, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >Note that, independent of any packaging issues for Ubuntu, upstream best
> >practice would have the absolute paths in these files generated at build
> >time, once it's known where they will be installed.
> The specification [1] allows both unity the command name only or the
> full qualified path to it without recommending a solution.
>
> Looking through /usr/share/applications the vast majority of
> programs nowadays opt for the simple form, likely to avoid having to
> deal with an extra .desktop.in -> desktop through sed handling
>
> [1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s06.html
Bare names are generally preferred, not because of any effort to
avoid preprocessing files (there are lots of examples where packages use
.desktop.in -> .desktop processing and leave barenames), but rather to
let $PATH operate as expected, and similar. I suspect the use of the
bare name for the executable is also made more popular by the frequent
insistence by .desktop file reviewers that the icon should *not* be
an absolute path (as this breaks icon themes), and folk expect this to
apply to other entries as well.
--
Emmet HIKORY
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
