Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application


           What    |Removed                     |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841              |163779
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-20 14:22 EST -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> Fixed (in which way is makeinstall broken?, I used to not use it and then saw
> spec files using it and changed over when it works - I know not all packages
> will use the options it uses, is that the broken behavior?).

There currently is some interesting discussion on f-e-l (fedora-extras-list
mailinglist) just search for DESTDIR in the archives, btw you really should
subscribe ot f-e-l.

> Spec URL:
Looks good -> Approved!

> (sorry about the broken link before...)
No problem.

> A quick question. In my specs I usually include the desktop entry inline with 
> a
> cat <<EOF, I changed that on request as the guidelines require the desktop 
> entry
> to be a separate source file. Has anyone ever pointed out that that makes it
> more difficult to include a full path to the executable that will 
> automatically
> reflect whatever is in %{_prefix}? I think it is important that what I package
> executes what I package and not whatever is in the path that happens to match
> the executable name. Right now I'm just including "Exec=qjackctl" in the 
> desktop
> file instead of what I used to do which was "Exec=%{_bindir}/qjackctl". I 
> could
> obviously hack a "perl -p -i -e" inline script to replace a placeholder with 
> the
> real %{_bindir} but at that point I like it better inline :-)

Erm, I've never though about this before. Everybody uses just the command name
without a full path in the .desktop files without any problems. If there are 2
identically named binaries in different places in the path then that really is a
bug. If you would like to discuss this further please do so on f-e-l, I don't
feek further discussion belongs in this BZ ticket.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to