[blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r16477 - trunk/BOOK/gnome/applications

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Mon Sep 28 09:49:52 PDT 2015

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:09:05AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 27-09-2015 18:04, ken at higgs.linuxfromscratch.org escreveu:

Let's take this back to -dev.

> > Author: ken
> > Date: Sun Sep 27 14:04:27 2015
> > New Revision: 16477
> > 
> > Log:
> > Minor fixups in gnome.
> > 

> > +++ trunk/BOOK/gnome/applications/gnome-system-monitor.xml	Sun Sep 27 14:04:27 2015	(r16477)
> > @@ -123,6 +123,16 @@
> >  
> >    </sect2>
> >  
> > +  <sect2 role="commands">
> > +    <title>Command Explanations</title>
> > +
> > +    <para>
> > +      <parameter>--enable-wnck</parameter>: This switch adds support for
> > +      <application>libwnck</application>.
> > +    </para>
> > +
> > +  </sect2>
> > +
> This is very clarifying, indeed!!!

The point is that we add a description for options.  No, it isn't
wonderful.  Take it out if you wish.

But after this entree we get to the meat of your objection -

> > +++ trunk/BOOK/gnome/applications/gnome-terminal.xml	Sun Sep 27 14:04:27 2015	(r16477)
> > @@ -121,9 +121,7 @@
> >        Now, as the <systemitem class="username">root</systemitem> user:
> >      </para>
> >  
> > -<screen role="root"><userinput>make install &&
> > -sed -e 's/System/Utility/' \
> > -    -i /usr/share/applications/gnome-terminal.desktop</userinput></screen>
> > +<screen role="root"><userinput>make install</userinput></screen>
> This is not true before your unhappiness, there were two at Utility.
> This had been discussed before, because it was not optional, and Bruce
> had decided to modify them to optional. But either because he forgot or
> because didn't want to keep his agreement with me, he agreed with you.
> There were 2 (two) terminals optionally in Utility. Now, 1.
> I did the modifications, because I learned Linux in distributions that
> use terminals in Utility. This argument is part of the mentioned
> discussions.

I do not recall that.  And after using icewm, with its own menus, it
appears to me that the freedesktop menu standards put terminals in
System.  And I do not recall seeing terminals in 'Utility' except
with this change.  Which distros do, or did, this ?

> Now, I am the one unhappy. But think that I will be still unhappier and
> you happier.
> To make your statement above true, you need to modify two more, and
> perhaps from now on you will be able to sleep:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/lxde/lxterminal.html
> {{{
> [Note] Note
> By default, LXTerminal installs its menu in the System category. If
> desired, change it to the Utility category:
> sed -i 's/System/Utility/' data/lxterminal.desktop.in
> }}}

I had not looked at lxterminal.  But there I see immediately that
they sed was optional, whereas the gnome-terminal sed was not.

If there is a general wish to accomodate people who have been used
to finding terminals in the Utility menu, we could make all of them
have *optional* seds.  But until I read your comments I had not been
aware that any distros do that, or used to do that.

That is why I am moving this to -dev for discussion.

> OH! And of course you are making the guru, who has publicly, probably in
> this list, stated to be my *enemy*, repeating, you are making the guru
> very happy, because the guru was the original one complaining.
> Impressive how it seems your other complaints are all in agreement with
> your observations.

On some things I have agreed with Armin, on others I have disagreed.
That is probably true for the decisions made by every editor over
the years.

> Yes, useless to say, but I object.
> I think I didn't pass the test.

You didn't reply to the -dev list, so I interpreted that as
acquiescence to Bruce's reply.

> But will keep researching the reasons for what is in the book. It is my
> fault to not have removed some things not anymore necessary, but not
> including them. As I said in another post, unless it is a copy/paste
> error to a wrong file, normally something rational obliged or or
> suggeted the modifications I did.
> You editors have found so many big problems with my work, that I wonder
> if you wouldn't prefer me doing just small things that you could discuss
> and let me know.

Fernando, the book is not about a war between the editors, and the
world is not black and white.  We all live in the world as we find it,
and as editors we take greater or lesser interest in different parts
of the book.

And things change.  The important thing is to keep questioning
whether something is correct-enough and appropriate.  The book is
meant to be about learning, not treating how things were done at a
particular point in time as a gospel to be adhered to for ever.

Il Porcupino Nil Sodomy Est! (if you will excuse my latatian)
  aka "The hedgehog song"

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list