Hi, 2013/12/6 Rashif Ray Rahman <[email protected]>: > On 7 December 2013 01:15, Alexander Rødseth <[email protected]> wrote: >> If there are no protests, I will, after some time (say, three days > > I don't think that's enough time to get the representative opinion.
You cut away the important part of the quote. Here is what I wrote: "three days without any replies to this thread" That means that after the last person has replied (there may be replies for days and weeks), I will wait three days. Do you think I should wait even longer after the last reply? > Anyway, on topic, I know I have at least a couple of packages where I > provide the desktop file, but don't know if upstream presently > includes one in their sources. I will have to attend to these. Good point! Where upstream desktop files are available, that is preferable, of course. > So, I say +1 to include desktop files as long as upstream does not > provide them. You can file a bug report with them, but the desktop > file stays until they attend to it. Also, it doesn't matter how it was > created, as long as the package includes it. I disagree, I think all .desktop files should be removed from our repositories, with the only exception being if a package maintainer wishes to keep his packages like they are right now. > If a packager wants to go out of her way to provide a desktop file for > software that traditionally do not ship with one, I say we allow her > to do it. I say we make it a requirement to provide one, for all GUI applications, but not by putting easily generated .desktop files into our repos. Do you know of any female Arch Linux package maintainers? I don't. - Alexander / xyproto
