Adding Unity to OnlyShowIn allowed values
hadess at hadess.net
Wed Mar 2 08:36:21 PST 2011
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
> 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"
> 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
> 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.
More information about the xdg