Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox Alias: firefox-32 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256 ------- Additional Comments From wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-26 17:18 EST ------- > - install desktop files with desktop-file-install in %install Why is this necessary? > - Why not use the firefox icon if firefox is a requirement? > I think firefox.png would be better than redhat-web-browser.png > - Why not use mozilla-firefox-32.desktop as the filename to be > consistent with the firefox package? I am hesitant to do this because it is politically sensitive that this package exists at all and I don't want to bother arguing with the Mozilla Corporation about using their icon here. I would be happy to use another icon if someone provides one that looks attractive. > - Consider also using the mozilla-firefox.desktop file's Name, > Generic Name and Comment fields to use as a template for the > firefox32 .desktop file. I think the 32 bit version should have > the same icon/description as the 64 bit version in order to make > it consistent and easier to find. Aside from the reason above, doing this would not work fully as expected due to the many translations. In my opinion it is totally not worth the effort to do any of this .desktop branding improvements. However, I will accept contributions to improve this if someone goes through the effort to do it the right way. rpmlint on SRPM: > W: firefox-32 strange-permission setup-firefox-32.sh 0755 rpmlint on RPM: > E: firefox-32 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > W: firefox-32 no-documentation > W: firefox-32 one-line-command-in-%trigger /usr/lib/firefox-32/setup-firefox-32.sh /tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-3.i386.rpm.3552/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop: warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false" or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards compatibility I am going to ignore these as they are not a problem. http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.src.rpm http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/firefox-32.spec * Sun Nov 26 2006 Warren Togami <wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.1-3 - change license to Public Domain - own firefox-32 directory - fix .desktop file s/True/true/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review