I agree. Without having a way to reference the directory that the .desktop file lives in (using relative paths or some special sequence) it really harms portability. When I am developing an app to be installed in standard directories on target machines, I have to have all my desktop entries hardcode paths to my development copy, then have them rewritten when I install. Huge pain that shouldn't be necessary. I really think they could introduce some sort of like `$0/` or something that could allow referencing the directory the .desktop file is in without breaking backwards compatibility (incompatible desktop implementations would just not show an icon, which is what it already is doing anyway).
Discussion of: Problem!: Linux .Desktop Files Don't Allow Relative Paths?!
I agree. Without having a way to reference the directory that the .desktop file lives in (using relative paths or some special sequence) it really harms portability. When I am developing an app to be installed in standard directories on target machines, I have to have all my desktop entries hardcode paths to my development copy, then have them rewritten when I install. Huge pain that shouldn't be necessary. I really think they could introduce some sort of like `$0/` or something that could allow referencing the directory the .desktop file is in without breaking backwards compatibility (incompatible desktop implementations would just not show an icon, which is what it already is doing anyway).