On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 09:44 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Friday 22 December 2006 10:05, Matthias Clasen wrote: > >> No, the guidelines are simply wrong here. > > > > Matthias, after the break, would you be willing to put in some time to > > help us revamp this part of the guidelines? > > Help/clout would be appreciated. I, too, would prefer that the --vendor > usage be not mandated (ie, be optional at most). Unfortunately, since the > fdo menu spec (strongly?) recommends it's usage, it's unclear to many in > the PC how best to tackle that. > > We made some progress on this recently, see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopFiles > Can we change this portion from the Guidelines now: Also remember that it is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the package, you need to run desktop-file-install in %install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils). Here are some examples of desktop-file-install usage: I believe when we voted to stop mandating the usage of --vendor this should have gone away as well. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
