Subject: Re: distcc-gtk (now depending on the original distcc)
To: None <>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <>
List: tech-pkg
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 <>
The NetBSD Project -