Alfred Peng wrote:
>> Shouldn't the two patches go upstream? Even if Songbird wants to
>> support non-GNOME applications, I'd think the configure script could
>> still detect if there is a /usr/share/applications directory and
>> add the desktop file if so.
> The taglib patch will be up-streamed for sure. About the menu item
> patch, I think it's better to get Takao's L10N evaluation for the file
> first and then I'll post the patch to Songbird community for review.
> Also add patch-03 which was developed by Ginn and still under review.
Yeah I think we could probably take both patches (the .desktop & taglib
ones). I haven't yet looked at patch-03. What necessitates that patch?
>> > Version: 0.6
>> > %define tarball_version 0.6.1
>>
>> Why not just define Version to be 0.6.1 and avoid using tarball_version?
> When I unpack the tarball provided by Songbird, the top level
> directory is Songbird0.6 instead of 0.6.1. However, the link to the
> tarball contains the string 0.6.1. That's the reason I keep two
> version numbers here. Anyway, the updated spec removes the 0.6 version
> number and adds one line "mv Songbird* Songbird%{version}" to get
> around this.
That's probably a mistake on our part, it should probably have untarred
to Songbird0.6.1, sorry :)
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
