| Summary: | cog-0.5.3 - COnfigurator for Gnome (New package) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Andreas Proschofsky (RETIRED) <suka> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | pg |
| Priority: | Lowest | Keywords: | EBUILD |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
The ebuild itself
cog-0.6.0.ebuild |
||
|
Description
Andreas Proschofsky (RETIRED)
2003-03-17 17:53:46 UTC
Created attachment 9545 [details]
The ebuild itself
Here is an update for version 0.6.0, the download links changed so I attach a new ebuild Created attachment 15033 [details]
cog-0.6.0.ebuild
There's a new version of cog available (0.6.1). I version bumped the copy of this ebuild I keep in my local portage tree and it compiles/merges just fine. Simply renaming the ebuild file to cog-0.6.1.ebuild updates it. Just out of curiosity. Is anyone planning on putting this in the portage tree? It's a pretty nifty program for people that really don't feel like traversing the gconf tree looking for missing configuration options. Anyway, I'd like to say that the ebuild Works For Me(tm), and as a relatively simple one, I hope it can get tested and have the "thumbs up" for inclusion RSN. hmm to be honest i don't really see the use of adding this, it is based on gconf keys which may or may not be there. I suppose it's all hardcoded keys and a change in those would render it partially 'broken'. From the screenies i also see duplicates of what is already available in default gnome setting menus. We don't really have a policy on rejecting ebuilds, but on my gut feeling i would say this shouldn't be in the tree. Maybe better to give it to the author to put on his page somewhere. no reply on comment #5, so i'm closing this WONTFIX for the reasons stated there. Thanks for your report & work anyway, but i hope you can see my point. I'd suggest sending your ebuild the application author to put on the applications homepage. |