Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Thursday 05 July 2007, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Florian La Roche wrote: >> >>> The error output is a real bug, so just closing this is not very >>> good. >> I agree that its a bug. However as said the scriptlet recipe was changed >> from checking to not checking, I'm sure this was discussed and there were >> reasons. So lets first discuss this with the people who made this change. > > Well, I don't remember if I was involved in that, but if we don't want the > scriptlet to fail and don't want to display the error output (no matter > whether it's because of a missing executable or some other error running it), > dunno if checking first adds any value. > > Not adding the dependency is there because it'd pull in GTK to non-GTK setups > for no gain. This is fine and should be preserved, but actually, I think the > snippet/guideline should be changed so that the Requires(post) and > Requires(postun) dependencies *should* be added in cases where the packaged > app requires GTK itself anyway, and left out just like currently if it > doesn't. Opinions? What about adding 'Requires(post): coreutils' to bring in 'touch' for the gtk+ icon cache scriptlet: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246770 It seems excessive to me, because I can't imagine a situation where coreutils would not get installed. But I also haven't looked that closely at the dependency tree either. --Wart -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
