[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] policy on desktop files?

[Xavier]

w9ya at 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.