app id in desktop file
pcman.tw at gmail.com
Sun May 8 23:53:55 PDT 2011
Namespacing is not very needed in this case.
As mentioned in previous mails, names under /usr/bin are already unique.
We almost always named desktop files after their binary names.
If the binary names are unique, then the desktop ids should be unique, too.
Or anyone wants to do namespace thing in /usr/bin to avoid conflicts, too?
For example, will you name a program like this: /usr/bin/org.gnome.Panel?
The answer is probably no.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Shaun McCance <shaunm at gnome.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 00:40 +0200, Ryan Lortie wrote:
>> hi Dylan,
>> Thanks for your remarks.
>> On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 07:13 -0700, Dylan McCall wrote:
>> > We're basing some very important, system-wide (sometimes even global)
>> > things on simple names that are not being qualified in any way.
>> This is a pretty important point and not really a strictly philosophical
>> debate either. We have some situations like epiphany where multiple
>> packages have the same name and we need to do some tricks (like renaming
>> to epiphany-browser) to dodge issues.
> I like the idea of all IDs being namespaced. It's cleaner and avoids
> conflicts (like Epiphany). But right now, we mostly base IDs off of
> binary names. On Unix-like systems, /usr/bin is already the ultimate
> naming authority. If you have conflicts there, nothing else really
> The thought of typing rDNS-style commands in the shell makes me
> It would be interesting to look at a list of everything that gives
> us some sort of names for things, and how well those things line
> up with each other: distro package names, desktop file names,
> pkg-config names, D-Bus bus names, settings schema IDs, help
> URIs, binary names, datadirs, etc.
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the xdg