From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SJQD3-0001Pq-Az for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:13:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE384E0C16; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08F2E0CA7 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:12:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (156.Red-2-137-14.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.14.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA7741B4004 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:12:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About validate_desktop_entries in eutils.eclass From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev In-Reply-To: <20120415160254.4849799a@pomiocik.lan> References: <1334483990.2557.6.camel@belkin4> <20120415160254.4849799a@pomiocik.lan> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Nw3hccKx03+nNC0/hTHK" Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:12:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1334499131.2557.12.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 7633ab9c-fc3a-48f8-a512-b5cd91061941 X-Archives-Hash: 252cfe45909845eef4609433707261f8 --=-Nw3hccKx03+nNC0/hTHK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El dom, 15-04-2012 a las 16:02 +0200, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny escribi=C3=B3: > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:59:50 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >=20 > > I am unsure about validate_desktop_entries() utility. It's currently > > provided by eutils.eclass and only called by net-firewall/fwbuilder. > > Shouldn't this be moved to a "qa" check? Current way is pretty useless > > as it's not used by most of packages, and calling it from a lot of > > eclasses/ebuilds doesn't sound me like a good idea. > >=20 > > What do you think? >=20 > Agreed. It should be in repoman. >=20 The check needs to be run over desktop file going to be installed, not sure how repoman can handle it, it looked to me more like a emerge job (like is done with other qa checks run before installation) --=-Nw3hccKx03+nNC0/hTHK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk+K1zsACgkQCaWpQKGI+9T3CgCdF/wPKoLRylHX+R53vgPtYJAy boQAn33SzyZGjPN/ll6ngXsUxHy4rQIA =1bBP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Nw3hccKx03+nNC0/hTHK--