On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:09:45AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > 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 ? Rex made (inho) a good analysis wrt to what the vendor should be and crafted the guideline that is now used. It's quite messy, I agree, but Rex' solution looks fine. > Once again, desktop files prove to be the worst possible implementation > of an application registry... > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpjBBrK8cISR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
