Ray Strode wrote:
> Actually,no one remembers why --vendor was added in the first place.
> It's a bad idea, and I made it optional a few desktop-file-utils
> releases ago.
>
> One reason it's a bad idea is because it makes our desktop files
> have a different name than the upstream desktop files. Any code
> that needs the name of the desktop file needs to be patched to use
> our name. It's just broken.
>
> I would remove --vendor for new rawhide packages completely. If
> desktop-file-install is too old to not have vendor at all, then
> --vendor "" or --vendor the-name-of-the-file-without-.desktop is
> right.
Will this get updated in the guidelines then? Otherwise there's
conflicting advice floating and that will likely lead to some
pointless discussions in reviews.
The guidelines could be changed to remove --vendor from the examples.
In the notes below would it need to mention that if you've previously
used --vendor with the package that you should continue to do so?
When would it be alright to drop vendor_id from a .desktop file that
had it previously? Do it in rawhide and let upgraders deal with any
issues it causes to their custom edited menus (if there truly are
any)? Or would the vendor_id need to be carried for a while?
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
-- Voltaire
Attachment:
pgpG76N7tubiW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
