Le Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:45:45 -0400, Jacob Edwards <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hello everyone. > > Over the past few years Ubuntu has been using desktop entries to fetch > applications from its repositories and display them in the software > center. All packages with a desktop file are considered applications; > they appear with their entries' Name, Icon, and Comment in the > software center, while other packages are hidden as "technical items". > > It turns out this approach is problematic. > > * Some applications have extra desktop launchers. Wesnoth, for > instance, comes with a map editor. From the perspective of an app > store, however, 'wesnoth.desktop' and 'wesnoth-1.8_editor.desktop' > are just one app. > * Some applications have no primary launcher. Wine, for instance, > comes with a notepad, a configuration launcher, a registry editor, a > program uninstaller, a help app, and a drive browser. None of these > embody "Wine" as one thing a user is interested in installing. > * Finally, at a package level, it is often advantageous to package > desktop launchers separately from the main package. So an app store > ends up installing a 'app-common' package instead of the entire > application. > > In the past we've manually maintained an entry blacklist and > package->app mapping for the software center. It's become clear that > this solution won't scale. > > There's been some discussion around a solution at the package level: > > # https://dev.launchpad.net/ArchiveIndex#Overrides > > However, I think it would be much cleaner to extend the Desktop Entry > standard to include *generic, non-executable descriptions of a user > application*. Such a file might look like this: > > [Desktop Entry] > Version=1.0 > Type=MetaApplication > Name=Foo Viewer > Comment=The best viewer for Foo objects available! > URL=http://fooview.com > Icon=fooview > MimeType=image/x-foo; > > # And perhaps..... > Package=fooview > Screenshot=http://fooview.com/screenshot.jpg > Description=[Longer description of fooview here] > > Would any other parties be interested in modifications like this > landing in the Desktop Entry spec? Just wondering, would using DOAP files make sense? Cheers Adrien _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
