Takao Fujiwara - Tokyo S/W Center wrote:
> Alfred Peng-san wrote (07/23/08 01:33 AM):
>> Stephen Lau wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for filing bug
>> 10935(http://bugzilla.songbirdnest.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10935) to
>> track the .desktop patch. I'll update the spec to include this bug
>> number.
>
> It seems your patch doesn't include a l10n logic.
> Normally I apply the INTLTOOL_DESKTOP_RULE in Makefile.am
>
> desktopdir = $(datadir)/applications
> desktop_in_files = songbird.desktop.in
> desktop_DATA = $(desktop_in_files:.desktop.in=.desktop)
> @INTLTOOL_DESKTOP_RULE@
Hi Takao,
For application's source tarball that doesn't have Makefile.am, could I
also put the above code in Makefile.in?
Thanks,
-Alfred
>
> Thanks,
> fujiwara
>
>> Don't worry about the patch-03. It's for Mozilla, not Songbird itself.
>>>>> > 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 :)
>> We have a walk around for that now and can update the spec for the
>> next Songbird release.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Alfred
>>
>
