Subject: Re: distcc-gtk (now depending on the original distcc)
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com>
Date: 06/14/2005 17:24:03
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 16:59 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> > * 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).
Will be done, if the patch still applies (I prefer dropping the .desktop
and icon file for the -gtk version, see below).
> > * 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).
Ok. That's what I meant, btw. Just used the abbreviation "sed". :-)
> > * 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.)
The Gnome people would probably prefer distcc-gnome, the package I'm
creating right now, using ./configure --with-gnome (instead of
--with-gtk). It has identical functionality but uses some different
libraries (libgnome, libgnomeui and pango, ontop of gtk+).
If the -gtk package would keep the icon and .desktop file, I'd prefer
making them CONFLICTing.