Web lists-archives.com

Re: Debian Policy 4.0.1.0 released




For further reference, the full TC decision text is at:
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/09/msg00000.html

Le dimanche, 6 août 2017, 11.40:26 h EDT Guillem Jover a écrit :
> At this point I guess the decision to cope fairly with such subpar and
> imposed policy that a maintainer that has a package shipping both a
> desktop file and a menu file is either to:
> 
>  - ignore it, very sadly violating policy, :( at least until there's
>    a proper transition plan that does not leave users and WM/DE
>    maintainers in the cold,

In September 2015 [0], the TC proposed a transition plan, in the form of 
points 3. & 4. :
>    3. We further resolve that "menu programs" should not depend on the
>    Debian Menu System and should instead rely on .desktop file
>    contents for constructing a list of applications to present to
>    the user.
>    4. We advise the maintainers of the 'menu' package to update that
>    package to reflect this increased focus on .desktop files by
>    modifying the 'menu' package to use .desktop files for the
>    source of menu information in addition to menu files.

One "proper transition plan" has been proposed, and there was no visible 
result in almost two years; it's certainly sad that`xdg-menu` (from Arch, see 
[1]) has not been packaged; nor did our very own `menu` [2] receive enough 
love.

The other recourse was (well, still is) a GR, which hasn't happened either.

As I wrote back then [3] (and I haven't changed my mind) : 
> the burden of keeping the trad-menu relevant would be (IMHO correctly) put
> on people who care about it, instead of leaving it on all package
> maintainers through the Debian Policy.

Also in [4]:
> The "trad-menu" database will be preserved iff there is enough manpower
> to make this happen: either through an automated desktop-to-menu
> translation interface, or through a centralisation of that database.

Le dimanche, 6 août 2017, 11.40:26 h EDT Guillem Jover a écrit :
>  - protest it, and still be policy compliant, by going the Solomonic
>    route and removing both files.

That would be stupid, to be blunt.

The next step is that this policy change is likely to find its way as a Lintian 
warning (or error). But we're still _very_ far from mass bug reports, without 
even talking about their severity (and several TC members indicated they were 
against 'serious' severity).

    OdyX

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/xdg-menu
[2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/menu
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2015/08/msg00076.html
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2015/08/msg00046.html
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2015/09/msg00005.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.