Subject: Re: distcc-gtk (now depending on the original distcc)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
Date: 06/14/2005 17:16:12
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 16:59 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> Here is, once again, a new package for distcc and distcc-gtk:
> This time, distcc's Makefile is again splitted into Makefile and
> Makefile.common, so that distcc-gtk can use it. distcc-gtk is an
> additional package, which depends on distcc.
> Still a few things:
> * There is a little patch for the .desktop file in patches/. How can I
> now also use the patches from ../distcc/patches/ ? Maybe I should put
> the .desktop patch in ../distcc/patches/ as well, and then use
> PATCHDIR=../distcc/patches/ in distcc-gtk/Makefile ?
Just use a single patches directory (the one in distcc).
> * I'm using a patch now, but this may become very dependant of distcc
> versions (i.e. may have to be changed for each new version of distcc).
> Maybe I should just use sed "s/-gnome/-gtk/" ?
If the replacements are safe, yes, that'd be OK. Just keep in mind to
use the subst framework rather than sed (grep for SUBST_CLASSES in the
existing packages for examples).
> * As this is a GTK package, not a Gnome package, does it need an icon
> and .desktop file at all?? If not, the package would consist of only
> the binary, and all the previous problems are not applicable anymore.
Yes, it's worth to have the icon and .desktop file. The application
will then be visible in gnome/kde's menu. (Or in other wm's, when we
implement the required functionality.)
> * distcc-gtk or distcc-gtk2? There doesn't seem to be a general rule
> for this in pkgsrc...
distcc-gtk. There is no advantage in hardcoding the version number in
the program's name and will just cause confusion.
Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/