On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:09 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:21 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826 > > > > I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the > > outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append > > "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora" > > category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in > > /usr/share/applications ? > > The packaging guidelines seem pretty clear to me. For new packages, if > upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as > <vendor_id>. > The part that is unclear is that it is not defined anywhere what a vendor prefix is, really. Upstream just happens to ship desktop files that are called gnome-foobar.desktop or kde-powertoy.desktop, and we have to guess that the part up to the first - is the vendor prefix. But what about things like tetex-xdvi.desktop or virt-manager.desktop ? Once again, desktop files prove to be the worst possible implementation of an application registry... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
