Adding Unity to OnlyShowIn allowed values

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 10:25 -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 10:26 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Le vendredi 18 février 2011, à 22:26 -0600, Ted Gould a écrit :
> > > On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:52 -0600, Ted Gould wrote:
> > > > We would like to add "Unity" to the list of values allowed for
> > > > OnlyShowIn in the menu spec.  While Unity is mostly GNOME based there
> > > > are cases where we'd like some desktop files and menus that GNOME does
> > > > not so the distinction is relevant.  Patch attached (it's huge!)
> > > 
> > > Haven't seen any objection on this, I'm guessing it's not because people
> > > are scared of my good looks.  Sound good to everyone?
> > 
> > We usually wait a week or so to make sure everyone has time to object
> > :-)
> 
> I haven't seen any objection, just questions to this.  Final call?

Your original explanation:
> The use that pushed me to write the patch/email was with the Desktop
> Actions that we're putting in desktop file for static actions on the
> Launcher.  Unfortunately, it's still an X- thing but I intend to
> update
> it to the current version of the Desktop Actions spec soon (because of
> release timing we needed something too quickly).  In the actions that
> we've added and sent upstream we've been adding an "OnlyShowIn=Unity"
> to
> ensure they won't effect other projects.  I have suggested a couple of
> times that GNOME Shell should use the same actions, but I don't
> believe
> they currently are.
> 
> I think longer term, we'd like to do things like have multiple desktop
> files for applications that provide major features.  Things like
> Evolution providing mail and calendar.  GNOME Shell's matching doesn't
> allow for two desktop files for an executable, but we can do that with
> BAMF.  So we could make the second desktop file Unity only.

It seems to me that you should be using OnlyShowIn=GNOME, and either
you, or the first person to experience it, would file a bug against
gnome-shell about this problem.

I don't think that adding another value here is needed.

Cheers