w9ya@qrparci.net wrote:
It entails NO 'duplicated work' for me to supply a .desktop file when one is not extent. And my supplying it is not 'useless' (work) either. (And since I work from a template, it is also simple.)
Um, your "policy" steps above sure seems to be a lot more steps than just making a .desktop file and including in the package while also submitting it to the upstream package author. Of course IF the upstream adopts the .desktop file then the package maintainer can remove his. <- If you are really advocating *less* "duplicated" and "useless" work, I cannot accept this set of steps you propose as a way to achieve that result.
Or put more succinctly, we do NOT need a policy on this past just some plain ol' common sense. i.e. DO what you can for the folks downstream that will be using the package you are maintaining, (make them a .desktop file). And let the folks upstream (that author the program code) know about your .desktop file so they can adopt what you wrote if they choose to. And NO I am NOT gonna generate a "useless" arch bug report about it.
It's plain ol' common sense that you don't need a bug report if you are maintaining the package yourself... The extra steps are obviously only required for users. Btw, this wasn't meant as a policy but just some guidelines for users who don't know what to do when they notice a missing desktop file and would like to help out.