/usr/share/applications/evince.desktop is configured not to display in the Gnome menu, via: "NoDisplay=true". IMHO this is a bit short sighted and forces me to use the file browser to view a PDF when its faster for me to launch evince directly. A related post to Debian's bugzilla suggests this is an upstream decision, but I believe its the wrong one. I installed Adobe Reader because I didn't know Fedora came with a PDF reader, simply because it's not present in the Gnome Menu. From a non-technical user's point-of-view if its not in the Gnome Menu it doesn't exist. It also seems silly to have an evince.desktop packaged if you go out of your way to hide it...
*** Bug 578052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi, the reason for not showing evince in the application menu is that it is only a viewer. Users are assumed to find their file and open it by double-click instead of openning viewer, finding the file and double-click. The desktop file is present because of right-click menu. The upstream discussion is held here https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312399. Regards Marek
Why should a user be forced to use Nautillus (or whatever else) to open PDF files? This seems like stubbornness for the sake of it, rather than offering users a sensible choice. I know I _never_ use a graphical file manager, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. As an aside, but equally important, this is very inconsistent; "gThumb Image Viewer" is listed in the Applications menu and one would assume that this would be the viewer invoked to view images, but no - "Eye of Gnome" is used instead and that also isn't in the Applications menu. This kind of inconsistency is what drives users mad.
Hi Mark, this is an explicit decision of upstream to set NoDisplay to "true". I'm closing this with resolution UPSTREAM. Regards Marek
(In reply to Marek Kašík from comment #4) > this is an explicit decision of upstream to set NoDisplay to "true". I'm > closing this with resolution UPSTREAM. Isn't that resolution supposed to be accompanied by a reference to an upstream bug report? Actually, <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow> seems to indicate that you should only use it if you expect upstream to fix it at some point, which they aren't likely to do if they're convinced it's a feature.
(In reply to Samuel Bronson from comment #7) > (In reply to Marek Kašík from comment #4) > > this is an explicit decision of upstream to set NoDisplay to "true". I'm > > closing this with resolution UPSTREAM. > > Isn't that resolution supposed to be accompanied by a reference to an > upstream bug report? Actually, > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow> seems to > indicate that you should only use it if you expect upstream to fix it at > some point, which they aren't likely to do if they're convinced it's a > feature. I see that the UPSTREAM resolution was not quite right. So I'm changing it to NOTABUG since this is not a bug but a feature! :)