[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: desktop-file-install



Ray Strode wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>> Actually, it's not --vendor="", it's --vendor="<vendor_id>", with the
>> explanation of vendor_id just below the examples:
>>
>>     * If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use
>>       fedora as <vendor_id>.
>>
>>     * It is important that vendor_id stay constant for the life of a
>>       package.
>>
>>   This is mostly for the sake of menu-editing (which bases off of
>>   .desktop file/path names).
> 
> Actually,no one remembers why --vendor was added in the first place.
> It's a bad idea, and I made it optional a few desktop-file-utils
> releases ago.
...
> I would remove --vendor for new rawhide packages completely.  If
> desktop-file-install is too old to not have vendor at all, then
> --vendor "" 

agreed, but this pretty much varies from the fdo spec, which "strongly
recommeds" use of vendor, which most of the FPC considered more important
to follow.

> One reason it's a bad idea is because it makes our desktop files have
> a different name than the upstream desktop files.

.desktop files from upstream aren't supposed to be renamed (which is the
message the current guidelines try to convey).

Pretty much the only time --vendor is to be used to explicitly
rename .desktop files are in the case when upstream doesn't supply one (ie,
and use --vendor=fedora).  Even in this particular case, I personally don't
like it all that much.

-- Rex


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]