/opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

woodstock · 2004-12-25 19:12:23

Hi,

I have been doing a little bit of research in some areas that I feel Arch needs to clean up. (That sounds more harsh than what I mean)

Basically, many of the apps in the repositories do not install the .desktop file correctly, if at all, and this leaves much to be desired. i don't want to come down on the package maintainers, but this is a step that needs to not be skipped. (BTW thank you for all the hardwork you people do, don't take this the wrong way)

I think the lack of setting up the .desktop files reflects on Pacman itself... well at least to the new comers who don't really look into how the system itself is setup as it doesn't really make it feel all that easy and making launchers for most of your apps manually is a step that should be done for you. Yes I also know that Arch isn't for new comers to linux, unless they really want to learn.

I did some more snooping around in the PKGBUILDS that do and don't install properly in the menu's and this is what I've come accross:

Gnome and KDE are installed in /opt, making them self-contained and easier to maintain - yes I agree with this.

Now most apps install to /usr by default and for Gnome / KDE each app has to be hand tailored to install the .desktop in the /opt prefix, adding much more work for the package maintainers. At least this is how I see it. Personally I prefer things to be installed in /usr as that's just what I'm use to and I really don't see it as a messy practice.

Now I know, "if you don't like it, then don't use Arch" might come up and more power to you, but this was not meant to rag on Arch it was / is merely some constructive criticism.

Care to comment? Care to Correct me if I understand something incorrectly? Please do

cactus · 2004-12-25 23:49:14

Could you clarify a bit further?
To me at first read it seems that the major issue you have is that new installed apps are not setting themselves up within the gnome/kde environment. By not installing themselves in menus, registering as handlers, etc.

Is this a proper summation?

woodstock · 2004-12-26 00:03:25

Yes and no.

Yes to the packages not installing menu items etc.

The other issue, well not really an issue just an observation, is installing gnome/kde to /opt seems to add a step for package maintainers who have to patch each app to install the .desktop file that comes with the app provided by the app devs themselves to the /opt prefix... Since I'm not a package maintainer for Arch perhaps its not seen as a problem to the actually maintainers... I only assume that it adds to the work load, hence slowing things down for Arch.

No?

cactus · 2004-12-26 00:15:28

woodstock wrote:

Yes and no.
Yes to the packages not installing menu items etc.
The other issue, well not really an issue just an observation, is installing gnome/kde to /opt seems to add a step for package maintainers who have to patch each app to install the .desktop file that comes with the app provided by the app devs themselves to the /opt prefix... Since I'm not a package maintainer for Arch perhaps its not seen as a problem to the actually maintainers... I only assume that it adds to the work load, hence slowing things down for Arch.
No?

Well, I agree that things should register themselves in menu's etc. That would be nice. I am not sure how easy it would be to do..every gui app would need to know WHERE to install itself in a menu, and would have to test for each WM to see which one is installed. Quite a bit of extra overhead. I think a better solution might be to have a wiki section, or arch doc page that details how to do this oneself. Some good concrete and easy to follow examples should solve this problem, and then that extra overhead could easily be avoided...
'course, being a minimalist like I am, I am probably not the best person to ask about this...

As for installing to /opt, I guess this is more of a consesus of the devs issue. If the devs are comfortable/used to doing it this way, then I suppose it is up to them. I think it would be helpful to have some reference material for people creating custom/new packages as to what is expected to go where. Sometimes I just guess, and likely get it wrong...
If a doc like this exists already, please someone provide a link..
8)

i3839 · 2004-12-26 00:31:19

Next time simply complain about missing .desktop files instead of blaming /opt for something it can't help. Many apps also need their config in /etc while they're obviously not installed there, why not move that somewhere else too?

I assume the .desktop files are in either /etc (the logical place) or in /usr/share/desktop? Anyway, I think the real "problem" is that the packages don't have a .desktop file by default when they should have one. That should be fixed upstream, not by Arch imho.

skoal · 2004-12-26 00:37:11

For what it's worth, I think the Arch developers/package maintainers have it right. It's just the rest of the Linux distributions that don't have a clue about running a multi-user distributed environment. With that said, I come from a Unix background, and "/opt" is where you want to place packages such as "Gnome", "KDE", etc.

If you want to talk about standards, I'll give you one: the FHS. It's a good standard to follow, and related to this topic.

From my experience, it's much easier having a separate "/opt" partition for such apps, when running a distributed network. Not that most Arch users do so, but I like the intention (if there was one) behind the Arch distribution layout. It's cleaner and easier to manage. I run XFCE and am not familiar with other desktop IDE problems using "/opt".

In case other Linux users are migrating from other distributions, and they stumble upon this thread while looking for another, "opt for Arch".

cactus · 2004-12-26 01:41:23

skoal wrote:

If you want to talk about standards, I'll give you one: the FHS. It's a good standard to follow, and related to this topic.

Ooooh. Good link skoal. Thanks.
8)

I would really like something similar to that doc specific to the arch way of thinking, at least the arch dev way of thinking. I assume some of it is loosly applicable, but some of it looks like it is not applicable.

woodstock · 2004-12-26 07:45:03

First off I have no problem with things being placed in /opt. This is not the problem. Plus I really wasn't addressing this as problem, only sharing what I thought might be of interest to others.

As for the .desktop files, those are provided by whomever wrote the app in the first place. Most app dev's make their programs default to /usr hence the default FHS the .desktop file looks for (in this example Gnome) /usr/gnome/share/applications.

Now, since Arch places Gnome in /opt, all of these apps need to either be told through the PKGBUILD or by a patch to install the .desktop file into the /opt prefix. This goes for KDE aswell (although I don't know where it goes under kde, maybe /opt/kde/share/applications?)

Anyway, as for i3839's comment, I wasn't "complaining" as I stated in my original post I thought I would just shine some light on this issue. I am able to make launcers for myself but thought it was just inconvient to have to. I think the whole point of having a dependancy checking package manager is to make installing and removing apps easy and trivial, so the lack of menu entry's is just not following this idea in my opinion.

Well, whatever. Seeing how bringing up something that I feel needs fixing is seen as "complaining" by some, so be it... maybe it will magically fix itself

Issues that never get mentioned at most likely never to be fixed.

cactus · 2004-12-26 08:10:00

woodstock wrote:

Well, whatever. Seeing how bringing up something that I feel needs fixing is seen as "complaining" by some, so be it... maybe it will magically fix itself
Issues that never get mentioned at most likely never to be fixed.

I hope you didn't take it as we were belittle-ing (sp) you for your view. I was only trying to engage in reasonable dialog about the statements you presented.
*shrug*

vicious · 2004-12-26 10:53:10

I agree maintainers should care more about .desktop files. Thanks for bringing up this issue. But you missed the truth a bit.

Placing GNOME and KDE in /opt is NO PROBLEM (at least when using GNOME, as I do). GNOME checks BOTH /opt/gnome/share/applications AND /usr/share/applications. For example, I have abiword.desktop, gimp.desktop and inkscape.desktop in /usr/share/applications and their are seen by GNOME.

So what's the problem? The problem is that: 1) many packages (like gtk-gnutella) don't install the .desktop file which is shipped with the sources; 2) many packages (for example beep-media-player) have wrong .desktop file, which doesn't put the package in "Application" category.

In BMP, for example, we have a line:

Categories=GTK;AudioVideo;Player

BMP doesn't show up in GNOME menus - it would if this line looked like:

Categories=Application;GTK;AudioVideo;Player

i3839 · 2004-12-26 12:43:21

You were complaining about /opt while your problem is those missing desktop files, that doesn't make sense. All I tried was pointing that out If you have problems with missing .desktop files then simply say so, but don't whine about something totally unrelated (/opt).

If they were required to be placed in /opt/gnome/share/applications then it's Gnome specific and not an agreed on standard, and Gnome's problem if those desktop fiels were missing (even Fluxbox has an auto menu generator...). But luckily as vicious pointed out, the files need to be placed in some central place, just like config files. Now you may complain about packagebuild not handling .desktop right, but do that for each package seperate as a bug report in the bugtracker, then it may be even fixed.

woodstock · 2004-12-26 17:45:55

Thank you vicious.

This clears this up for me. From my understanding the DE's Gnome in this case only checked undering its prefix for the .desktop files. So I thought it only looked uder /opt/gnome/share/applications.

Cactus I didn't have any problems with your questions/comments.

I3839 - Well, my understanding was that /opt MIGHT be a problem. I also said that I have NO PROBLEMS with things being placed in /opt because that doesn't really matter. Especially now, because vicious pointed something out that I did not know about prior to posting.

My reason was to try and show the relation between using /opt for a DE and for the apps installed. Instead of thinking that I'm trying to rag on Arch be just another uninformed idiot who thinks that /opt will break everthing and that it shouldn't be used by the distro, just don't say anything at all or try and clear it up politely.

I'm still glad I posted.

Thank you for those who posted.

xerxes2 · 2004-12-26 18:00:56

things are hopefully getting better with fredesktops recommendations, also i would love to have a ~/.config dir containing all .files , that would clear up your homedir,

skoal · 2004-12-27 01:08:24

xerxes2 wrote:

things are hopefully getting better with fredesktops recommendations, also i would love to have a ~/.config dir containing all .files , that would clear up your homedir,

"~/.config" you say?

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but sometimes, late at night as I lie in bed and my eyes grow heavy, I turn my resting head in direction where my computer rests, as if to embrace her goodnite with a warm peaceful smile. Suddenly, a faint orange flicker from my case begins to creep into my failing vision, and I hear the whir of 6 dormant fans breath to life. Nearly on the edge of unconciousness, I hear a deep monotone voice emmanate from the far flickering orange recesses of my room...

"ALL OTHER DESKTOPS TAKE A KNEE...BOWWWW YOURRRR HEADDD ANDDD WORSHIPPPP MEEEE!!!!!!...LOOKKK UPONNN MYYY GLORYYY ANDDD HEEDDDD MYYYY EXAMPLEEEEE....FORRRR IIIIII AMMMM XFCEEEEE....

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AMMMMMMMM YOURRRRRRRR KINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG....

MUAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAAH....

MUAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAH....

MUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....

SLEEP....SLEEEEEEEP....SLEeEEEeeeep well Master Skoal. Dream of fast beautiful windows. Dream of sweet sweet standards and things to come....sleeep.....sleep....All is well master...sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep..."

KalephOne · 2004-12-27 04:24:18

skoal wrote:

xerxes2 wrote:
things are hopefully getting better with fredesktops recommendations, also i would love to have a ~/.config dir containing all .files , that would clear up your homedir,
"~/.config" you say?
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but sometimes, late at night as I lie in bed and my eyes grow heavy, I turn my resting head in direction where my computer rests, as if to embrace her goodnite with a warm peaceful smile. Suddenly, a faint orange flicker from my case begins to creep into my failing vision, and I hear the whir of 6 dormant fans breath to life. Nearly on the edge of unconciousness, I hear a deep monotone voice emmanate from the far flickering orange recesses of my room...
"ALL OTHER DESKTOPS TAKE A KNEE...BOWWWW YOURRRR HEADDD ANDDD WORSHIPPPP MEEEE!!!!!!...LOOKKK UPONNN MYYY GLORYYY ANDDD HEEDDDD MYYYY EXAMPLEEEEE....FORRRR IIIIII AMMMM XFCEEEEE....
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AMMMMMMMM YOURRRRRRRR KINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG....
MUAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAAH....
MUAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAH....
MUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....

SLEEP....SLEEEEEEEP....SLEeEEEeeeep well Master Skoal. Dream of fast beautiful windows. Dream of sweet sweet standards and things to come....sleeep.....sleep....All is well master...sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep..."

Wow... just... wow...
I'm extremely impressed...

Mine just says "Please, just kill me... i cant stand being a xp1700+ with 128mb running autocad on winxp anymore - KILL MEEEEEE!!!"

cactus · 2004-12-27 06:24:33

*speechless*

RedShift · 2004-12-27 08:50:37

Mine usually says, STFU I'm trying to sleep here.

JGC · 2004-12-27 09:17:19

An idea would be to patch up gnome-vfs to have an extra directory entry that looks in KDE and xfce4 application menu...
Nice, but then we end up patching gnome-vfs for every single project we have in /opt.

XDG_DATA_DIRS is the way to go, and the gnome people finally understood that. Currently, XFCE 4.2 is the only desktop that is 100% compliant with the XDG standards, KDE is partly compatible (it does pick up menu, but no icons :X), and gnome will be 100% compatible in the 2.10 release.

ravster · 2004-12-27 15:40:11

skoal wrote:

"ALL OTHER DESKTOPS TAKE A KNEE...BOWWWW YOURRRR HEADDD ANDDD WORSHIPPPP MEEEE!!!!!!...LOOKKK UPONNN MYYY GLORYYY ANDDD HEEDDDD MYYYY EXAMPLEEEEE....FORRRR IIIIII AMMMM XFCEEEEE....

I've never understood why people write "EXAMPLEEEEE" instead of "EXAAAMMPLE". Can you imagine yourself saying "EXAMPLEEEEE"??

Michel · 2004-12-28 13:48:46

Kde uses the freedesktop-menu-structure now. I suppose gnome too.
The configuration-files to change are located at "/opt/kde/etc/xdg/menus".

There is also a command to update the kde-menu:
kbuildsycoca

Here is a good info about it:

http://people.fruitsalad.org/phil/kde/u … -menu.html

mgushee · 2004-12-30 06:00:19

Hmm ... I have a somewhat different perspective on all this. IMNSHO, adding new apps to menus should be easy, but not automatic. I install a lot of software packages, but often just to try them out. I like my desktop lean and mean, and my menus organized according to my needs, not someone else's idea of the "correct" structure. I don't want any application automatically added to my main menu, ever.

On the other hand, a dead-simple menu editing tool would be nice: something like: find an application icon in a directory, drag-and-drop it to a menu tree, and presto! it's on the menu. This perfect menu editor would also display a list of recently installed apps, so you wouldn't have to hunt around for them.

Also, consider: since Arch is expressly targeted at experienced Linux users, I wonder if it's really a good idea to put a lot of effort into a feature that is most valuable for not-very-technical types, and is likely to annoy some people (like me). Then again, I don't use GNOME or KDE anyway, so it doesn't affect me. Still, I think it's a mistake to automatically assume that this sort of automated configuration is what the people want.

woodstock · 2004-12-30 22:18:59

I thought this over a little bit more and I would have to agree.

I am however pretty linux savy and I don't really see it as a problem when it's automatically added to a menu, especially if you're testing a program out and don't want to hunt for it. Plus when the program is uninstalled the menu items are usually removed as well. So it shouldn't add any cruft to your customized app selection.

I also think that even if Arch is for technically savy people, it doesn't have to mean that EVERYTHNG even something as trivial as a menu entry has to be made manually. Even Gentoo (sorry if this pushes any buttons) which says its a distro for dev's,network admins and the lot does this. Then again I don't know if people like or dislike it, though it would seem to be liked as ebuilds are put together in such a way that this gets done automatically.

I just feel, whether or not this is a technical distro I felt the whole point to pacman was to make installing, de-installing and packaging apps easy, so real work can get done by the user.

I felt Arch was the best mix. A distro with a flexible yet simple package manager, lean base install, friendly community and it doesn't slow me down. Perfect.

sarah31 · 2004-12-31 03:20:57

When i used Arch I used blackbox and tried my best to avoid applications that had the extra instant menu crud. Why? I didn't want extra .this or usr/share/ that. I had very specific options to open many apps that allowed me to not have to manually adjust applications after opening them. I was able to have rip set to run my specific options at runtime .... etc. Using a WM i expected to be able to control the menu files, among other things.

With automatic controls I lose the ability to control the system the way I like to. By the time I left Debian and Libranet one of the things that drove me nut s was all the auto this and thats. I was stuck so many times with something I did not want and despite learning manually being able to edit the files debian was very possessive and would revert the files against my wishes.

if you want auto configure dodads you should be able to have a toolset you can install on your own. Leave us control freak be.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-12-25 19:12:23

/opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#2 2004-12-25 23:49:14

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#3 2004-12-26 00:03:25

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#4 2004-12-26 00:15:28

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#5 2004-12-26 00:31:19

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#6 2004-12-26 00:37:11

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#7 2004-12-26 01:41:23

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#8 2004-12-26 07:45:03

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#9 2004-12-26 08:10:00

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#10 2004-12-26 10:53:10

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#11 2004-12-26 12:43:21

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#12 2004-12-26 17:45:55

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#13 2004-12-26 18:00:56

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#14 2004-12-27 01:08:24

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#15 2004-12-27 04:24:18

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#16 2004-12-27 06:24:33

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#17 2004-12-27 08:50:37

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#18 2004-12-27 09:17:19

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#19 2004-12-27 15:40:11

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#20 2004-12-28 13:48:46

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#21 2004-12-30 06:00:19

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#22 2004-12-30 22:18:59

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

#23 2004-12-31 03:20:57

Re: /opt - Yes again... don't be mad.

Board footer