explanation: http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Creating_Konqueror_Service_Menus#Creating_an_Action example file: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/sunrise-reviewed.git;a=blob_plain;f=www-misc/abloadtool/files/abloadaction.desktop repoman report: desktop.invalid 3 www-misc/abloadtool/files/abloadaction.desktop: required key "Name" in group "Desktop Entry" is not present www-misc/abloadtool/files/abloadaction.desktop: key "Actions" is present in group "Desktop Entry", but the type is "Service" while this key is only valid for type "Application" www-misc/abloadtool/files/abloadaction.desktop: key "MimeType" is present in group "Desktop Entry", but the type is "Service" while this key is only valid for type "Application" as far as I understand those menu files can be recognized by the following entry: ServiceTypes=KonqPopupMenu/Plugin
We simply call desktop-file-validate from the dev-util/desktop-file-utils program. I guess we can add some code to detect this specific error and ignore it when appropriate.
This should fix it: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=aa63202838c5346692b49ae26fff16b6977fb56c
This is released for testing in 2.2.0_alpha102.
I believe this was wrongly resolved and KDE developers have just not pushed hard enough in the XDG mailing list to validate new type of entries Everything possible recognizing them as such should keep on complaining long as they do the work
Well, the spec explicitly mentions that Type=Service is reserved for use within KDE: http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/apb.html Based on that, I get the feeling that desktop-file-validate just doesn't support these "KDE-specific extensions" happen to be mentioned in the spec.
(In reply to comment #5) > Well, the spec explicitly mentions that Type=Service is reserved for use > within KDE: > > http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/apb.html > > Based on that, I get the feeling that desktop-file-validate just doesn't > support these "KDE-specific extensions" happen to be mentioned in the spec. ah yes, you seem to be right if it's mentioned there too :)
This is fixed in 2.1.10.58.