[arch-dev-public] [arch-general] The Final Cleanup
rodseth at gmail.com
Fri Dec 6 15:33:26 EST 2013
2013/12/6 Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at archlinux.org>:
> On 7 December 2013 01:15, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth at gmail.com> 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
Do you know of any female Arch Linux package maintainers? I don't.
- Alexander / xyproto
More information about the arch-dev-public