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: isomaster - GUI CD image editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220969 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-29 17:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > I moved it there due to: > > desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \ > --dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ > %{name}.desktop > > in %install section. But If mock doesn't like it I moved it back to BuildRequires. > Remember that %install section is executed at building an SRPM, not at installing the binary one. That's why you need to put it into BR. > > * I don't see it as a blocker but in my opinion much better solution would be > > if you move a desktop file to another Source instead of creating it in spec. > > That should be a lot more legible. > > Ok, I moved it. > Desktop files aren't as large to put them into tarball. You can remove a tar compression and get rid of second %setup macro. Now, you can put %{SOURCE1} macro into desktop-file-install: desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \ --dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ %{SOURCE1} and it looks much better :) -- 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