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. 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
