On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:03 -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 00:07 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 13:46 -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> >
> > > One (perhaps) very minor point about desktop files. Before packaging for
> > > fe I used to create the .desktop file with a cat << EOF statement in the
> > > spec file. Now I'm using a separate desktop file as suggested. The thing
> > > I can't (easily) do that I was doing before was to include the full path
> > > of the executable by using a %{_bindir}/name statement in the inline
> > > desktop file.
> >
> > If that's what one wants, it's only a sed oneliner away, so it's not
> > exactly that hard either.
>
> Yeah, I agree. I don't know what's the original rationale for not doing
> an inline and forcing packages to have an extra file...
I do believe I was the one who told you to change it. Admittedly, the
main reason was "When in doubt, do what the packaging guideline example
does." Though nothing explicitly says "here documents are bad", the
ability to use macros is arguably useful, but once you start including
stuff like init.d scripts as here documents, as I've seen done, the
stacked quoting needed to do so gets really, really ugly and
unmaintainable.
One possible reason to keep it separate is, if you use a here document,
the timestamp on the file changes every build, thus builds aren't
exactly reproducible.
I dare say the packaging committee should formally clarify this issue.
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
