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

Re: Request for Additional Review: sword and gnomesword



On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 21:23 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> These are in cvs now. I've requested fc3 and fc4 branch, so they should
> build in those environments.
> 
> sword is required by gnomesword, sword-devel is required to build
> gnomesword
> both build for me in x86 fc3 and x86/ppc rawhide - I don't have x86_64,
> so I don't know if there are any issues.
> 
> gnomesword may need to be updated - the desktop file does not contain a
> GenericName field.
> Looks like I can fix that with --copy-name-to-generic-name but I think
> the GenericName is suppose to more brief and generic, I'll figure out
> what I want to do before requesting a build.
> 
> GenericName seems to be missing from a lot of application files
> (including bluefish, which is from Extras) - is that a new requirement
> or is it really not necessary?

>From my POV, GenericName is something that needs to be solved upstream
in order that it gets translated at all (unless you happen to be fluent
in all languages and can do the translation by yourself ;-). Using
--copy-name-to-generic-name to workaround a missing generic name seems
legitimate to me.

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp redhat com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011


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