Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:54:20 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: "demon@FreeBSD.org" <demon@FreeBSD.org>, "lioux@FreeBSD.org" <lioux@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] A trivial change for DESKTOP_ENTRIES (take 2) Message-ID: <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <4E1F200D.1080002@missouri.edu> References: <201107121826.00020.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201107131857.36772.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <4E1E9C79.6080105@FreeBSD.org> <4E1F200D.1080002@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-RVWTPaQiCSzpYe/xS0AF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stephen Montgomery-Smith p=ED=B9e v =E8t 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500:
> entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is unimportant,=
=20
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and our
only care should be not have two ports installing same file.
> and is used only internally by Gnome or whatever.
Sounds like a bug to me.
> But maybe it would have been better to have had one more entry in=20
> DESKTOP_ENTRIES that was the actual filename of the desktop entry. =20
Yes, but is it worth the effort? Note you'll have to introduce it
somehow not to break existing ports.
--=20
--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
Cats happen.
--=-RVWTPaQiCSzpYe/xS0AF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)
iEYEABECAAYFAk4fLUcACgkQntdYP8FOsoLpSwCeIuPTkHa1TzpZ0CYrBmYLp4o8
ro0AniC2aVTymKsAVPrO8jAmoZc5euxs
=6dMg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-RVWTPaQiCSzpYe/xS0AF--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1310666060.23182.1.camel>