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

Re: rpms/xchat/devel xchat-2.8.2-desktop.patch, NONE, 1.1 xchat.spec, 1.62, 1.63 xchat-2.4.2-nickmenu-away-msg.patch, 1.2, NONE xchat-2.4.3-lib64.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.4.4-multiline-messages.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.4.4-redhat-desktop.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.6.0-dbus-api.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.6.6-es.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.6.6-fi.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.6.6-nonblock.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.6.6-simplify-to-use-gnome-open-for-default-webbrowser.patch, 1.1, NONE xchat-2.6.6-simplify-to-use-htmlview-for-default-webbrowser.patch, 1.1, NONE



Christopher Aillon <fedora-extras-commits    > writes:
> > - follow desktop-entry-spec on Name and GenericName as required by the
> >   Packaging Guidelines
> 
> Except this is so very wrong.  This is not what the spec (which we take 
> active part in writing) is intended to do.

Yet it is what it _says_, and also what KDE based their implementation on when 
they offered the _user_ to decide whether they want to show real or generic 
names (or both, which is the best solution IMHO) rather than having the distro 
force a decision on them. The blatant disrespect for the spec in some 
Fedora .desktop files breaks that and leads to inconsistent menus.

IMHO, a generic name has no business to be in the Name field, that's what 
GenericName is for. And I definitely know there are other people agreeing with 
me on that (Rex Dieter, for example).

> I'll attempt to get this clarified with fesco

I'd appreciate some enforcement of the democratically-voted packaging 
guidelines, which explicitly say "Installed .desktop files MUST follow the 
[desktop-entry-spec], paying particular attention to validating correct usage 
of Name, GenericName, [Categories], [StartupNotify] entries.", from FeSCo!

> but please undo the .desktop change.

I'm not too happy about doing that because I really believe my change is both 
the right thing to do and required to comply with the guidelines, but if that's 
the only way the update (just pushed to updates-testing) can go into the 
released updates without causing a big stir, I'll have to comply. :-(

        Kevin Kofler


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