Rox and desktop files: how to display Comment[fr]

[musher0]

fichiers Desktop sont très exigeantes
don't blame me though my translation was worse...

I don't want to pass out while compiling.... please don't hold any breath during this food related pause

Actually i will slip a note into the version output to distinguish the build.

mike

To come back on this... never mind the translations. You're doing fine.

I'm more concerned about the other entries of the *.desktop files:
almost no one writes a *.desktop file that is standard compliant.

Added:
In particular, every one is trying to impose his/her own idea of
"Categories". And this brings chaos, my friend, worse: a real mess.

Even at the level of the standards committee.

For example, you can tell that none of the members there is or has ever
been a musician: the purely musical or sound programs should be in the
Audio category only, not merged inside the "AudioVideo" category.

Etc. etc., etc. Lack of logic all around.

We should open a separate thread about this mess.

BFN.

musher0

[mikeb]

kde add something to the exec line that is good for breaking other systems too

Actually I find an empty stomach a great motivator especially if the next filling is not guaranteed

So nothing else to do then for now... anyone want the sources...or at least the altered file?

MIke

[L18L]

A big Thank You also from me.

So nothing else to do then for now...

The topic is SOLVED by you.
(If you are bored you can add similiar things with GenericName and Comment to JWM menu.)

... anyone want the sources...or at least the altered file?

or the patch file?
I think Barry, Mick, James, woof, etc. ...... will get them (and compile for 64 bit).


___
EDIT
changed jwm_menu_create to JWM menu

[xanad]

Thanks Mikeb, works fine
[it] and [it_CH] too.
Confirmed!

[jamesbond]

Great work mikeb. Patch file please?

[mikeb]

Ah a patch file..the ultimate weapon of confusion.

Well you have filer.c and main.c needs altering to not show the running as root message.

Actually how is rox obtained for official puppy making...is there a build package or is it compiled each time and if so from what? main.c must be hacked for starters

I used the 2.11 download from ROX website...

I also could build for 2.10 which runs on gtk 2.8 + ..at least its working on puppy 4.12.

Mike

[jamesbond]

Actually how is rox obtained for official puppy making...is there a build package or is it compiled each time and if so from what? main.c must be hacked for starters

I can't say for contemporary puppies, but for Fatdog it is built from source from the latest git master (https://github.com/rox-desktop/rox-filer); with my own patches applied, using automated build script. So I don't depend on pre-built binary or pre-patched source, instead I apply the patches on vanilla sources as needed and then build it. I know that Quirky April follows the same method as well but using T2 as the build system.

----

To make the patch, do this:
1. Assume your modified version of rox 2.11 is stored in /mnt/sdb1/work/rox-2.11
2. Rename it to /mnt/sdb1/work/rox-2.11-new
3. Re-extract the original rox-filer to /mnt/sdb1/work/rox-2.11
4. Then, cd to /mnt/sdb1/work
5. and then "diff -ur rox-2.11 rox-2.11-new > $HOME/rox.patch"
(the patch created this way is a bit "dirty" but is usable). And you can ship the patch to me

Alternatively, just make a tarball of your build directory and upload it somewhere; since you told me that it is build from rox 2.11 I can do the steps above myself. Once done I am happy to share the patch with the rest of us.

cheers!

[mikeb]

Well the rox sources are a little unconventional plus there seem to be many variations floating around so not 100% on what's best in this case really.

Simplest way for now
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s4ettwe6jiho ... Y77Ia?dl=1

Apart from needing to include i18n.h all changes are in the one function tip_from_desktop_file

I actually have a build from debian on one system and its layout has such as /usr/bin/rox for binary and /usr/share/rox for its data rather than the self contained apprun job usually found... did find it less confusing actually.

By the way you may wish to adjust my comments.. I normally don't get to share source changes cos no one wants them

mike

[jamesbond]

Thanks Mike. Btw Fatdog own patches are in http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/source/700/patches; there are 3 patches for rox filer (applicable to the latest git master) for anyone who want it.

EDIT:
Mikeb's patch attached. I also re-write the patch and put my version here.

cheers!

[musher0]

@jamesbond: Of course the by-line for this edit will be mikeb's, right ... ? Is that noted somewhere in your file?

[mikeb]

So first I get a boat, now I have a patch....anyone got a wooden leg and a parrot handy?

mike

[musher0]

So first I get a boat, now I have a patch....anyone got a wooden leg and a parrot handy?

mike

Not me.

No parrot, only a budgie, once.

But I have a few pronunciation exercises, like: arr, arr, arr. (repeat 5x)

Also a long library shelf made of plywood that you could use as a plank.

Arm-hooks are not your style, I gather. Will destroy a keyboard in no time, shucks.

[mikeb]

The arm hook could be very useful for using the sea toilet in a storm.....

as long as i remember which arm has the hook afterwards...

mike

ps

arrrrrrrrr!!!!!
pps
why does ginger look like Mr Krabbs?

[musher0]

Back to serious:

Anybody noticed interference between the wm and mikeb's modd'ed ROX?

Under wmx (yeah, I know, musher0's always off-off-Broadway...), it seems
that wmx-8 takes over the modded ROX after 3-4 minutes, and I can't click
on any ROX icon. Just the wmx menus appear.

Working with jwm and modd'ed ROX appears ok, AFAICT.

BFN.

musher0

[mikeb]

serious ... this is the puppy linux forum isn't it

Hmm curious..something that works better with jwm.

Well I did free that which should be freed but there may be other patches applied to the rox in puppy but otherwise cannot think of a reason offhand.
I used 2.11 ...check what version you had with ROX-filer -v

I assume the rox you had was ok with wmx?

If I find anything I will report.

mike

[mikeb]

http://bkhome.org/sources/alphabetical/r/
ugh...yes a pile of patches i see... would seem like whoever builds rox for 32 bit pups needs to add my tweak perhaps...

mike

edit well since jamesbond has kindly made a patch then whoever is the maintainer bunny needs to merge it into the build... get yer swords ready.

[mikeb]

Hmm just noticed the owner and group on the Rox binary is ftp:ftp ...wonder if that has an effect...indeed the sources i was using all have weird and wonderful ownership which was having a strange affects on the Rox apps folder.

Weird bleeding sources in general.

Mike

[Keisha]

By chance I was rummaging through the rox website http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/home.html and then happened upon this thread. That rox desktop Find command is nifty. Nice way to get Xara Extreme too.

I downloaded the rox-filer source by

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/rox-desktop/rox-filer.git

and then copied the main.c and filer.c from mikeb into src, overwriting the originals; then did

Code: Select all

./AppRun --compile

and thus obtained a shiny new Rox-Filer for my DebianDog, screencap below.

The "Dnotify support... No" part does not worry me, because Inotify supersedes it. Might be a problem on distro's made prior to the switchover, say mid-2006.

Of direct relevance to musher0's problem, however, might be the "Binary compatibility... No (apsymbols.h not found)" notification.

A bit of googling turns up the fact that the "binary compatibility" being spoken of is "GTK binary compatibility" --it seems that the rox I compiled might have issues on machines running earlier versions of libgtk-x11-2.0 than the libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.2400.25 which I see in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu on this machine, according to this webpage:
http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/node/289

To plug a rox from one distro into another which uses an older version of libgtk-x11-2.0 is likely to give problems, unless rox was compiled "with gtk binary (backwards) compatibility" according to the guidelines on that webpage.

I must say, upgrading to this freshly-compiled rox 2.11 in DebianDog Jessie makes a noticeable difference in the speed with which rox does everything.

[mikeb]

Hmm yes that does seem to be about backward compatibility.

I build on Lucid with gtk 2.20 so may not have any impact in that respect with musher's problem.

There is mention of a focus patch in that bundle but without trawling through them its hard to say if anything is relevant...indeed this could be a new rox/wmx problem that has been highlighted.

Again who builds these roxes?
I have no connection with the devs here so my input is limited.

mike

[Keisha]

...I build on Lucid with gtk 2.20 so may not have any impact in that respect with musher's problem...There is mention of a focus patch in that bundle...

Ah, I see. Both jamesbond and BarryK have several patches for rox-filer.

@musher: what Puppy are you running?