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 1SJQ3t-0008Hr-Eo for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:04:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E58CE0A7D; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D649BE0C01 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:02:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (87-205-54-245.adsl.inetia.pl [87.205.54.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01BF71B4001; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:02:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:02:54 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: pacho@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About validate_desktop_entries in eutils.eclass Message-ID: <20120415160254.4849799a@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <1334483990.2557.6.camel@belkin4> References: <1334483990.2557.6.camel@belkin4> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/PurT7Dnqo5=v.6lZKTz95CE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: c384bd37-f979-458e-a11d-3f8ac0515f6a X-Archives-Hash: 9d926a15f1ec48e7bb835d93b5cc43ac --Sig_/PurT7Dnqo5=v.6lZKTz95CE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:59:50 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > 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? Agreed. It should be in repoman. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/PurT7Dnqo5=v.6lZKTz95CE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAk+K1Q8ACgkQfXuS5UK5QB08pQP/a/PfjiE8XYzblak0S8KYDDJt 8unxQmXodlBcPRkHZfYg1tWsov65CliwOf4U+nk8qAW5Y9pArU1SqxBSIp3GiolE k44tIU77NOOwdXXKidpEAQYQr236pR6oMvM7P4zeA2vh2+350lLDWBWUqV4w/+5d AB/WzFfbKubPHtpFJJU= =GDWl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/PurT7Dnqo5=v.6lZKTz95CE--