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

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Mon Sep 28 12:00:50 PDT 2015


Em 28-09-2015 13:49, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> 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:

>>> +      <parameter>--enable-wnck</parameter>: This switch adds support for
>>> +      <application>libwnck</application>.

>> 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 -

I don't want to take anything back. And I also write this kind of "very
clarifying" information.

>>> +++ 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 ?

Discussion at

http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2015-January/029379.html

guru:
>> Same goes for TerminalEmulator (right below the FileManager) and I'm
>> speaking about LXTerminal now.

Sísifo:
>
> Although I agree that it is a system tool, most, if not all devs, use it
> as file manager, to run the programs, to display images (feh, display),
> and many other uses. Thus for BLFS I still think it should be in
Utilities.
>

Discussion follows

http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2015-January/029386.html

and privately with Bruce.

This post is very interesting. One sentence the guru directed to Sísifo:

> Consider me as your enemy from now on

In that post, guru finds many distributions which comply with System, and

> finally, the black sheep of the community:
> 
> Xubuntu 14.10 -
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~krejzi/thepoint/Xubuntu1410.png

But I learned Linux with Ubuntu, where it was at utility, before Unity
messed things up.


About freedesktop, as i said in other post, for two recent ocasions,
Bruce was not complying with FSH and mainstream devs.



> 
>> 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.

Bruce forgot, then.

> 
> 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.

I am repeating for the nth time (believe n is approaching 10):

I don't invent these things I put in the book. They are done after
something logical made me do it.

But again, I prefer that you remove what is left and be happy, because,
anyway, happiness is something that I have never experimented.


>> 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.

I am not going to participate very much, for a while, that is the
reason. After Bruce's reply, forgetting what we had combined, the only
thing I could do was to wait, as recommended by you, and complain later.

>> 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.

A dozen things done by Sísifo are changed, including comments like
"terse explanations", Sísifo caomplains. Did Sísifo start a war? BTW war
is not Sísifo's etherenal duty :-)

I disagree: the world is black and white for some, more black for some
ones, more white, for others.

Closer to a black and white world are those who agree that file managers
and terminals, aka file managers by (B)LFS editors, need to be at System.

I can live with the wrong option of being at System. Yes, I consider it
wrong. I asked my system: would you ever go to "System", to open the
file manager? Of course the reply was a big NEVER. Couple of years or
one year ago, my ex-wife's nephew came here, to see what is "linux" and
if he wanted to change for it. After about half an hour, under Unity, he
asked me "where is that thing that let me find where the photos are?"
After some minutes of presenting photo viewers and telling him that he
could install Picasa, I finally understood he was talking about file
manager.

We are living with the correct option, although the world considers
systemd the standar and all the rest of us are "black sheeps".

As I wrote in one of the posts in the thread above, after guru defended
the status quo of freedesktop, I replied:

>
> And is clearly wrong. Some idiot wrote that because it came with the
> system, in Windows.
>

> 
> 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.

Agree.

Conclusion: I am not in a war, I am depressed. I don't want anything to
be changed, only that the other ones be fixed according to Black and
White, not the infinite spectrum world, which is much more than I white
world, which on includes the visible part.

And I like Bruce and you very much, so I consider this a family flame,
if forgive me and don't feel disrespectful for me writing this.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list