>>>>> "TA" == Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> writes:
TA> Now that I've pushed 2.6.4 out, and you've kindly put the tarballs
TA> in place, can you tell me if you've been able to do anything yet on
TA> this, in terms of Fedora packaging?
Well, I've done an initial run and dropped one of the patches since it's
unneeded in the current version. The other patches still apply, and I'm
not entirely sure what to do with them in the context of Fedora.
fvwm-2.5.30-mimeopen.patch
Calls mimeopen instead of $EDITOR || vi. Not sure why; obviously it
enables the use of a file-specific error, but the script says it's
just for plain text files.
files-2.5.30-more-mouse-buttons.patch
This fixes a real, reported bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548534
It doesn't appear to harm anything, and undoing it would be a
regression for at least the poor guy with the ten button mouse. I'm
honestly not sure why this isn't acceptable for upstream.
fvwm-2.5.30-xdg-open.patch
Call xdg-open instead of firefox. In the context of Fedora, we
definitely want this so that everything uses the same concept of
"configured browser". I can understand why upstream fvwm might not
want to depend upon xdg-utils, though.
And then there's the menu generation thing. I don't particularly like
this deviation from upstream, but my concern about it is that undoing it
would regress current Fedora users.
TA> I'm curious to know how much of a help or a hindrance it is having
TA> the rpm/ directory in the FVWM source -- or if it's even used?
It is completely unused by Fedora. I suppose it might be useful to
someone somewhere (since there are several rpm-based distributions) but
it's pretty far away from Fedora's packaging standards.
In any case, Fedora's policy is to draw on such things initially, but
not to try and keep synchronized with them as our packaging procedures
tend to evolve faster than most upstreams care to follow. (Which really
isn't all that fast, but....)
By the way, Fedora's rpmlint complaint that the FSF address is incorrect
in most of the source files. They moved a while back and the bit in the
source should read:
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
- J<
