Re: adding desktop files to misc packages
On Mon July 16 2007 12:03:17 pm Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:16:49 -0600
> Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I like Don's idea - remove the Debian menu from those window managers
> etc. that understand .desktop files and make the Debian menu aware
> of .desktop files for those other systems.
Ya, I think Don has come up with a pretty good summary of the most
reasonable/significant ideas. The only thing missing is an explicit
acknowledgement of the need for a way to grossly customize the menus
independently of any tools provided by a specific environment. E.g., I
would like the KDE K-menu to default to having a Debian submenu
containing all executables, with all other submenus containing only KDE
programs; if I fire up Gnome I would like its main menu to do the same;
etc.---without having to independently configure each environment.
> > [2] it has been awhile since I used Gnome but their menus used to
> > be slower than KDE's, KDE's have gotten slower (and take up more
> > HDD space, perhaps a consequence of the Freedesktop related stuff
> > added to the menu subsystem and maybe why there has been a push to
> > swith to .desktop files)... but the menus I get with UWM are always
> > very fast
>
> Depends what else has been happening on the machine - the .desktop
> based menus load very quickly if there is sufficient cache. The first
> time I view either menu, I get the same delay on this amd64 box, it
> appears to be the icons that are the cause of the delay, not the
> source of the textual data.
I'm not sure what is happening, only that shortly after it became
annoying I noticed "xdg" related menu-methods and a ~/.local dir which
hadn't existed before.
It does only happen first time accessing a menu, and seems to be related
more to the number of entries than whether they have icons or not.
<shrug> Anything I use frequently has a desktop shortcut, panel icon, or
is in the quick launcher, so it's not a big deal. A combination of KDE
style menu infrastructure and a less featureful environment would be
very annoying though.
Reply to: