On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:35:16PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> 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 previous -gtk version already renamed them (s/-gnome-/-gtk-/).  The
problem is that you said the patch for the .desktop file has to be in
../distcc/patches/.  This patch replaced s/-gnome-/-gtk-/ in the
.desktop file, but would then apply to all three packages, also the
-gnome one.  

I'll look into doing this using SUBST, in distcc-gtk/Makefile, then the
problem will be gone.  

GH

-- 
:wq