Desktop Entry patches and clarifications
danw at gnome.org
Tue May 1 09:29:57 PDT 2007
Vincent Untz wrote:
> And now, some issues that we should fix :-)
> + there are some issues with backslash escaping.
The suggested text in the bug you noticed seems fine.
> + "The %F and %U field codes may only be used as an argument on their
> I'm not sure about the "on their own". Does it mean that
> Exec=ooffice -math %U
> is invalid? (that's how I understand the current text). I have many
> desktop files here with similar exec lines.
It's supposed to mean that they have to be separate words, not part of
some other word. You can say:
but if you changed the %f to %F, it would be invalid. (Previously, the
spec let you put %F and %U there, but they would expand in a way that
was probably not what the author meant.)
> + "The executable program can either be specified with its full path or
> with the name of the executable only."
> If I install a file in /usr/bin/subdir/mybinary, then I can't put only
> "subdir/mybinary" in Exec. I believe the intent is to no have ".."
> and ".", but this is a bit more restrictive.
> (I didn't check if calling execlp with "subdir/mybinary" works, if it
> doesn't then we can safely ignore this comment)
"The functions execlp() and execvp() will duplicate the actions of the
shell in searching for an executable file if the specified filename does
not contain a slash (/) character."
More information about the xdg