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>