m (add category) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471#c57 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471#c57] | * [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471#c57 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471#c57] | ||
* [https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00154.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00154.html] | * [https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00154.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00154.html] | ||
=== Commentary === | |||
I don't see any conflicts between this and the existing Guidelines. Would this be okay as a clarification on [[Packaging:NamingGuidelines]]? I'm thinking another Section for Publican Generated Documentation Packages at the same level as Documentation SubPackages. | |||
--[[User:Toshio|abadger1999]] 15:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Desktop .spec file== | ==Desktop .spec file== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 26: | ||
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT | rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT | ||
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications | mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications | ||
cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications | |||
cat > %{name}.desktop <<'EOF' | cat > %{name}.desktop <<'EOF' | ||
| Line 33: | Line 38: | ||
Encoding=UTF-8 | Encoding=UTF-8 | ||
Terminal=false | Terminal=false | ||
EOF</pre> | EOF | ||
desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop | |||
</pre> | |||
'''Rationale:''' Publican is an automated tool that handles rpm generation from source for English and multiple language translations. To duplicate the volume of work that Publican does using a manual process would be hugely inefficient (and greatly prone to error). Currently we don't have resources to modify the output of Publican to separate the desktop entry out of the spec file. | '''Rationale:''' Publican is an automated tool that handles rpm generation from source for English and multiple language translations. To duplicate the volume of work that Publican does using a manual process would be hugely inefficient (and greatly prone to error). Currently we don't have resources to modify the output of Publican to separate the desktop entry out of the spec file. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 48: | ||
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972] | * [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972] | ||
* [https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00153.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00153.html] | * [https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00153.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00153.html] | ||
=== Commentary === | |||
Does it seem reasonable to implement this by modifying [[Packaging:Guidelines#.desktop_file_creation]] to read:: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
If the package doesn't already include and install its own .desktop file, you need to make your own. You can do this by including a .desktop file you create as a Source: (e.g. Source3: %{name}.desktop) or generating it in the spec file. Here are the contents of a sample .desktop file (comical.desktop): [...] | |||
</blockquote> | |||
--[[User:Toshio|abadger1999]] 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Packaging guidelines drafts]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:57, 30 March 2009
Proposed Packaging Guidelines for Documentation Packages generated by Publican
Package naming convention
Proposed: Documentation packages be named with the OS version number in the package name to allow parallel installation of multiple versions.
Example: fedora-security-guide-11-en-US
Rationale: There are several use cases where installing multiple versions of documentation on the same system is desirable.
See:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471#c57
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00154.html
Commentary
I don't see any conflicts between this and the existing Guidelines. Would this be okay as a clarification on Packaging:NamingGuidelines? I'm thinking another Section for Publican Generated Documentation Packages at the same level as Documentation SubPackages. --abadger1999 15:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Desktop .spec file
Proposed: Allow the Desktop entry to be included inline in the %install section of the .spec file.
Example:
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications
cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications
cat > %{name}.desktop <<'EOF'
[Desktop Entry]
Name=fedora 11: security-guide
Comment=A Guide to Securing Fedora Linux
Exec=%{viewer} %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/index.html
Icon=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/images/icon.svg
Categories=Documentation;X-Red-Hat-Base;
Type=Application
Encoding=UTF-8
Terminal=false
EOF
desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
Rationale: Publican is an automated tool that handles rpm generation from source for English and multiple language translations. To duplicate the volume of work that Publican does using a manual process would be hugely inefficient (and greatly prone to error). Currently we don't have resources to modify the output of Publican to separate the desktop entry out of the spec file.
See:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00153.html
Commentary
Does it seem reasonable to implement this by modifying Packaging:Guidelines#.desktop_file_creation to read::
If the package doesn't already include and install its own .desktop file, you need to make your own. You can do this by including a .desktop file you create as a Source: (e.g. Source3: %{name}.desktop) or generating it in the spec file. Here are the contents of a sample .desktop file (comical.desktop): [...]
--abadger1999 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)