On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:32 PM, <w9ya@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why ?, well there is no reason NOT to have one in such circumstances, and > often the upstream guys are expecting the downstream packagers to supply > it. <- And that's o.k. with me. > That's not alright. Anything that causes useless and stupid duplicated work is not alright. In my opinion, here is how things should work: User X notices package foo is missing a .desktop file X checks if a desktop file is already provided in upstream source tarball If yes, he reports a bug on arch bug tracker asking to provide the desktop file, and it's over. If not, he writes a desktop file and submit it upstream. If upstream accepts, it's over. If upstream first refuses, people should keep insisting and trying to make sense of them. Finally, in the (hopefully few) cases where upstream is really too dumb, he can submit it to arch bug tracker as an arch specific desktop file. Hopefully this should reduce the load of arch packagers and move it to arch community and upstream.
