Subject: Re: distcc-gtk (now depending on the original distcc)
To: None <ghen@telenet.be>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/14/2005 17:35:16
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:24 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> > Yes, it's worth to have the icon and .desktop file. The application
> > will then be visible in gnome/kde's menu. (Or in other wm's, when we
> > implement the required functionality.)
>
> The Gnome people would probably prefer distcc-gnome, the package I'm
> creating right now, using ./configure --with-gnome (instead of
> --with-gtk). It has identical functionality but uses some different
> libraries (libgnome, libgnomeui and pango, ontop of gtk+).
>
> If the -gtk package would keep the icon and .desktop file, I'd prefer
> making them CONFLICTing.
Hmm... you'd also rename the .desktop file and the icon. There should
be no problem in doing this, aside some more work ;)
The thing is that we will add a framework to pkgsrc to generate menus
for whichever window manager you have installed. So, if someone chooses
distcc-gtk, he will want to see it in the menu (be it fluxbox, wmaker or
whatever); hence, the need for it. (Or for example, if you are a KDE
user, you'll probably prefer distcc-gtk over distcc-gnome, and you'll
want your application to appear in the menu.)
--
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/