Proposing a New App Developer Upload Process

[Emmet Hikory]

Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 05/09/2012 03:55, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >Note that, independent of any packaging issues for Ubuntu, upstream best
> >practice would have the absolute paths in these files generated at build
> >time, once it's known where they will be installed.
> The specification [1] allows both unity the command name only or the
> full qualified path to it without recommending a solution.
> 
> Looking through /usr/share/applications the vast majority of
> programs nowadays opt for the simple form, likely to avoid having to
> deal with an extra .desktop.in -> desktop through sed handling
> 
> [1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s06.html

    Bare names are generally preferred, not because of any effort to
avoid preprocessing files (there are lots of examples where packages use
.desktop.in -> .desktop processing and leave barenames), but rather to
let $PATH operate as expected, and similar.  I suspect the use of the
bare name for the executable is also made more popular by the frequent
insistence by .desktop file reviewers that the icon should *not* be
an absolute path (as this breaks icon themes), and folk expect this to
apply to other entries as well.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY