RFE: Use generic names in packages

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:09:45AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:09 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:21 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245649
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245826
> > > 
> > > I have a couple of review requests which may be affected by the
> > > outcome of this discussion. Specifically whether one should append
> > > "fedora-" to the names of the *.desktop files or use the "X-Fedora"
> > > category in the *.desktop files installed by these packages in
> > > /usr/share/applications ?
> > 
> > The packaging guidelines seem pretty clear to me.  For new packages, if
> > upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as
> > <vendor_id>.
> > 
> 
> The part that is unclear is that it is not defined anywhere what a
> vendor prefix is, really. Upstream just happens to ship desktop files
> that are called gnome-foobar.desktop or kde-powertoy.desktop, and we
> have to guess that the part up to the first - is the vendor prefix.
> But what about things like tetex-xdvi.desktop or virt-manager.desktop ?

Rex made (inho) a good analysis wrt to what the vendor should be and
crafted the guideline that is now used. It's quite messy, I agree, but
Rex' solution looks fine.

> Once again, desktop files prove to be the worst possible implementation
> of an application registry...
> 

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070701/06255b0c/attachment.sig>