Danny Milosavljevic writes: > Hi Marius, > Hi 宋文武, > > On Sat, 20 May 2017 01:05:22 +0200 > Marius Bakke wrote: > >> Danny Milosavljevic writes: >> >> > these are two patches I propose we add in order to add >> > desktop-file-utils to all gtk applications. This means that the >> > profile hook would pick up the desktop files (as soon as possible). >> >> So if I read (guix profiles) correctly, the hook only runs when >> 'desktop-file-utils' is referenced. Would checking for a gtk reference >> as well not achieve the same effect? Or is that too expensive? > > That would probably work as well. > > But the idea is KDE would eventually use the XDG desktop cache, too (maybe it already does - no idea). Any other desktop environments that don't reinvent the wheel in that regard would use desktop-file-utils as well - and that's the package that actually contains the "update-desktop-database" executable for updating the XDG desktop cache. > > Right now the "xdg-desktop-database" profile hook doesn't need its own magical packages but it just uses the existing desktop-file-utils reference for actually updating the desktop database. IIUC, the idea is to run the hook every time a package with a ".desktop" file has changed. Even if we propagate "desktop-file-utils" from say, GTK+ and Qt, it won't catch some cases where we add the ".desktop" file manually such as "rxvt-unicode". I wonder if there is a more generic thing we could test for.. Maybe libx11? Obviously lots of false positives, but the hook is not *that* expensive. Thoughts? >> > One patch moves desktop-file-utils from (gnu packages gnome) to (gnu >> > packages freedesktop). I suggest we apply this patch to all branches >> > - since they don't change anything in the build. >> >> Adding it to 'master' would be sufficient, no? It will be merged to >> 'staging' and 'core-updates' in due time. > >> I don't see a good reason to move it though, but no strong opinion. > > desktop-file-utils is a freedesktop project. > > If we don't move it and if KDE used desktop-file-utils (as it should), we'd have KDE depend on Gnome. Ah, ok. Makes sense. > If we did move it in all branches, I mean also in wip-installer etc, I think it would prevent any merging problems - since git uses file hashes as commits - and people would not have to take care whether this branch has already moved it or not. IME, git usually recognizes cherry-picks as the same change, but not always. I think the problem is that "cherry-pick" is smart, it can adapt to some fairly complicated context changes unlike e.g. "patch". So, even if the cherry-pick succeeds, the file and context can be very different. For example, I recently tested merging a branch with 600+ cherry-picks back to 'master'. That went mostly-well, but there were some very difficult conflicts in all files that had changed in the other branch (and the duplicate branch history did not help). In short, I think we should prefer merging to cherry-picks whenever possible. Merging is equally smart, so if cherry-pick works "out of the box" merge will too. And they definitely do not prevent merging problems, quite the opposite!