Hi, 2013/12/6 Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org>:
On 7 December 2013 01:15, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth@gmail.com> wrote:
If there are no protests, I will, after some time (say, three days
I don't think that's enough time to get the representative opinion.
You cut away the important part of the quote. Here is what I wrote: "three days without any replies to this thread" That means that after the last person has replied (there may be replies for days and weeks), I will wait three days. Do you think I should wait even longer after the last reply?
Anyway, on topic, I know I have at least a couple of packages where I provide the desktop file, but don't know if upstream presently includes one in their sources. I will have to attend to these.
Good point! Where upstream desktop files are available, that is preferable, of course.
So, I say +1 to include desktop files as long as upstream does not provide them. You can file a bug report with them, but the desktop file stays until they attend to it. Also, it doesn't matter how it was created, as long as the package includes it.
I disagree, I think all .desktop files should be removed from our repositories, with the only exception being if a package maintainer wishes to keep his packages like they are right now.
If a packager wants to go out of her way to provide a desktop file for software that traditionally do not ship with one, I say we allow her to do it.
I say we make it a requirement to provide one, for all GUI applications, but not by putting easily generated .desktop files into our repos. Do you know of any female Arch Linux package maintainers? I don't. - Alexander / xyproto