[Bug 215256] Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox
Alias: firefox-32

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256





------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com  2006-11-26 17:18 EST -------
> - install desktop files with desktop-file-install in %install

Why is this necessary?

> - Why not use the firefox icon if firefox is a requirement?  
> I think firefox.png would be better than redhat-web-browser.png
> - Why not use mozilla-firefox-32.desktop as the filename to be 
> consistent with the firefox package?

I am hesitant to do this because it is politically sensitive that this package
exists at all and I don't want to bother arguing with the Mozilla Corporation
about using their icon here.  I would be happy to use another icon if someone
provides one that looks attractive.

> - Consider also using the mozilla-firefox.desktop file's Name, 
> Generic Name and Comment fields to use as a template for the 
> firefox32 .desktop file.  I think the 32 bit version should have
> the same icon/description as the 64 bit version in order to make
> it consistent and easier to find.

Aside from the reason above, doing this would not work fully as expected due to
the many translations.

In my opinion it is totally not worth the effort to do any of this .desktop
branding improvements.  However, I will accept contributions to improve this if
someone goes through the effort to do it the right way.

rpmlint on SRPM:
> W: firefox-32 strange-permission setup-firefox-32.sh 0755
rpmlint on RPM:
> E: firefox-32 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> W: firefox-32 no-documentation
> W: firefox-32 one-line-command-in-%trigger /usr/lib/firefox-32/setup-firefox-32.sh
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-3.i386.rpm.3552/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop:
warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false"
or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards
compatibility

I am going to ignore these as they are not a problem.

http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.src.rpm
http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/firefox-32.spec
* Sun Nov 26 2006 Warren Togami <wtogami at redhat.com> - 0.0.1-3
- change license to Public Domain
- own firefox-32 directory
- fix .desktop file s/True/true/


-- 
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.