As spot requested, here's an update to the wording of: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopFiles to make it clear that desktop-file-install usage is mandatory to help ensure .desktop file safety and spec-compliance.
-- Rex
On 1/30/07, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As spot requested, here's an update to the wording of: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopFiles to make it clear that desktop-file-install usage is mandatory to help ensure .desktop file safety and spec-compliance.
Hello, I think mentioning vendor-id is useless, since now fedora packaging policies doesn't include "fedora" as vendor name .
Chitlesh
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On 1/30/07, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As spot requested, here's an update to the wording of: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopFiles to make it clear that desktop-file-install usage is mandatory to help ensure .desktop file safety and spec-compliance.
I think mentioning vendor-id is useless, since now fedora packaging policies doesn't include "fedora" as vendor name .
Uh, yes it does: "If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>." That part of the policy remains unchanged.
-- Rex
On 1/31/07, Rex Dieter wrote:
Uh, yes it does: "If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>." That part of the policy remains unchanged.
Hmm, so if kde adds its desktop files at /usr/share/applications/kde, I should consider the vendor be "kde" here ? and leave the desktop files at /usr/share/applications/kde instead of /usr/share/applications ?
Chitlesh
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On 1/31/07, Rex Dieter wrote:
Uh, yes it does: "If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>." That part of the policy remains unchanged.
Hmm, so if kde adds its desktop files at /usr/share/applications/kde, I should consider the vendor be "kde" here ? and leave the desktop files at /usr/share/applications/kde instead of /usr/share/applications ?
Yes, exactly.
-- Rex
On 1/31/07, Rex Dieter wrote:
Yes, exactly.
Ah ha, then I should correct one or two of my packages :) hihihi
Chitlesh
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 08:46, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On 1/31/07, Rex Dieter wrote:
Yes, exactly.
Ah ha, then I should correct one or two of my packages :) hihihi
Make sure you respect this: « It is important that vendor_id stay constant for the life of a package. »
If I understood well, it means that, if one of your package use an "incorrect" vendor_id, you should keep it incorrect.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chitlesh GOORAH -
Laurent Rineau -
Rex Dieter