xdg-utils replacement (Was: Re: Proposal: Inharitance for Desktop Entry Spec)
vuntz at gnome.org
Thu Apr 17 12:52:52 PDT 2008
Le jeudi 17 avril 2008, à 12:11 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone a écrit :
> 洪任諭 wrote:
> > Brian J Tarricone wrote:
> >> 洪任諭 wrote:
> >>> However, the xdg-utils way has a serious drawback:
> >>> Currently xdg-utils only recognize gnome/kde/xfce.
> >>> There are much more different environments then these three, and the
> >>> number is still growing...
> >> Then those desktop environments should add support to xdg-utils for
> >> their environment and send patches. As you say, there are many more,
> >> and the numbers are growing -- we can't expect the xdg-utils maintainers
> >> to track all of these things.
> > I don't think this is a good idea... We already have too much
> > duplicated work like this.
> > This doesn't solve the problem from its root, and also it make things
> > much more complicated.
> You're probably right -- the script idea isn't really scalable. Got any
> better ideas?
> Maybe some sort of XDG DBus service that can handle much of the
> functionality that xdg-utils handles. Like xdg-open could be replaced
> by a dbus method, and I imagine most other functions could as well.
> Each desktop environment would be responsible for creating and
> distributing this daemon, which would take the burden off
> freedesktop.org. I see this as a good thing -- if a DE/WM wants to opt
> in to this support, they have a direct way of doing it that doesn't
> require external dependencies (that is, it doesn't mean having to get a
> patch included in upstream xdg-utils).
> It's a bit more work than writing a script, though. The current
> xdg-utils scripts could be replaced with dummy scripts that just use
> dbus-send to talk to the new interface.
Something like http://cvs.freedesktop.org/portland/portland/dapi ?
I think it died because there wasn't enough interest. But you should
probably ask on the portland mailing list.
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
More information about the xdg