The latest updated spec and patches. -Alfred
Alfred Peng wrote: > 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 >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: SUNWsongbird.spec URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080727/25b7a44a/attachment.ksh> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: songbird-01-menu-item.diff URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080727/25b7a44a/attachment-0001.ksh> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: songbird-02-taglib.diff URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080727/25b7a44a/attachment-0002.ksh> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: songbird-03-remap-pixman-functions.diff URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080727/25b7a44a/attachment-0003.ksh> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: songbird-04-system-zlib-for-taglib.diff URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080727/25b7a44a/attachment-0004.ksh>
