spec.in PATCHES(was: Re: Release Team: XFce4 SRPM suggestions)

[Ric]

--- Jasper Huijsmans <jasper at moongroup.com> wrote:
> Sorry to reply so late. Did anyone put this in CVS already?

Not late... :) , but I have no idea what the status is. The CVS
snapshot I just got still has  xfce4-iconbox  in *-devel so it's not
the latest => 24hr delay, iguess.
I presume that each developer/packager is going to look at applicable
spec patch file when the time is available and decide if it is okay. 
So I am just waiting for latest CVS(tonight, i hope) and yay/nay from
y'all to make suggested changes A/R and finish the rest.

Thanks for the reply.


> 
> 
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
> Ric <fhj52ads at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Olivier:
> > Hi everybody:
> > 
> > Hope you (all) have had a good day.  When I first read this
> > reply from you, I thought ' How nice that the 'boss' took
> > time to respond - and positively, too! '   
> > Since getting CVS a few days ago and seeing that the
> > "Release Team" has not made any changes to the  *.spec.in 
> > files, I re-read this and' ultimately decided that  " Good
> > idea. " really means:
> > " Good idea. " [ " now would you(if you want to) please go
> > do it so that I can concentrate on the other(important)
> > stuff. "]
> > 
> > Okay. :) 
> > - Attached. (bzipped tar achive(tar -xjf SPECS_1.tar.bz2 
> > to extract) with xfdiff patch files too.)
> > 
> > *Partially complete*  though cause I am not sure if my
> > editing of the (lack of) %descriptions is acceptable at
> > this stage(so near RC1) due to translations and what not. 
> > Plus, I am putting everything else(except dbh of course)
> > into a new subcategory, " Graphical desktop/XFce/Extras ",
> > if that is okay.
> > 
> > Also, xfwm4, xfce4-panel, xfdesktop and xfce-utils are,
> > technically,  "extras" but, frankly, personally, I cannot
> > imagine running XFce DE without those packages so I put
> > them into " Graphical desktop/XFce " as "recommended"
> > packages versus "required" or "suggested" packages like the
> > rest.
> > Also, I would like to put xfce4-session in the base
> > category as a 'recommended' but do not know its status for
> > XFce4 4.0.0 release plus I will have to make a spec file
> > for it as that seems to be missing(RPM hates Benny hates
> > RPM :) ) from the 0.21 targz.
> > 
> > If the additions to the "%descriptions" are not okay at
> > this date please let me know ASAP so I can remove them and
> > not do any more. If they are okay, I will upload a
> > SPEC_2.tar.bz2 with the others category and description
> > additions/changes.
> > 
> > I hope this meets with y'all's approval.
> > 
> > Please comment/suggest as you desire.
> > 
> > ================================
> > --- Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org> wrote:
> > > Ric,
> > > 
> > > Good idea.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Olivier.
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 22:51, Ric wrote:
> > > > Hey y'all:
> > > > 
> > > > I have noticed that the XFce files get placed into some
> > > odd
> > > > locations for " Group " in the RPM db categories, as
> > > > compared with other similar types of pkgs/files.  I
> > > would
> > > > like for that to change with XFce4.  These are some
> > > > suggestions to change the spec file "Group", where
> > > > applicable:
> > > > 
> > > > I think XFce deserves a category of its own.  I think
> > > the
> > > > name " XFce " is probably better than using "XFce4" for
> > > the
> > > > future ease of maintenance, BICBW... 
> > > > 
> > > > SUGGEST: put XFce4 pkgs in " Graphical desktop/XFce " 
> > > > 	--Gnome, Icewm, KDE, WindowMaker, Enlightenment,...
> > > are in
> > > > " Graphical desktop/<DEname> ";
> > > >         --note that there is no "s" and no capital on
> > > > 'desktop';
> > > > 
> > > > SUGGEST: put xfce(4) libraries required for runtime in
> > > "
> > > > Graphical desktop/XFce " with the other files required
> > > for
> > > > running it;
> > > >          --that seems to be the general way, at least
> > > for
> > > > Gnome;
> > > > 	 --they may need to go with the -devel pkgs so
> > > > Development/XFce is an alt. Group suggestion
> > > > 
> > > > SUGGEST: put xfce(4)-devel pkgs in Development/XFce 
> > > > 	--Gnome, Icewm, KDE, GTK+,... are in
> > > "Development/<name>";
> > > >          
> > > > SUGGEST: put dbh in "Databases" (not Database)
> > > >         --dbh belongs in "Databases" with the rest of
> > > the
> > > > database"s" pkgs
> > > >            -- the "Database" category was really a
> > > > typo/mistake, ithink
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Among other things, those little changes will help
> > > > finding the xfce4 files in the rpm db 
> > > > when searching manually thru a (X) pkg 
> > > > which is sometimes necessary(esp. when
> > > one
> > > > does not know the name of the file desired). 
> > > > I can make a list if you want/need specific file/spec
> > > > names.
> > > > 
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for listening.


=====
Have A Great Day!

Ric
***

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com