Kalev Lember wrote: > On 11/30/2015 07:09 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Matthias Clasen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 07:11 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >> >>>> I missed that, but I would say gedit is being erroneous by adding >>>> dependencies, at least with respect to desktop-file-utils. >>>> >>> >>> I added the dependency for a new enough desktop-file-utils build >>> because the desktop-file-utils package does not contain the file >>> trigger section before 0.22-6 >> >> Sure, but that's conceptually no different than the case where gedit >> owned the scriptlet but (also) had no dependency on desktop-file-utils. >> >> either way, if desktop-file-utils is not present, the effect is nothing >> happens. We only care about the case when desktop-file-utils *is* >> present and that case already works without adding any package >> dependencies. > > Rex, do you by any chance remember why the packaging guidelines say to > not add a dependency on desktop-file-utils? Does KDE not want the > dependency? I don't recall exactly, but I think one reason was because it would be added a hundred times all over. In this particular case, we're saving .spec scriptlets but (re)adding dependencies, so arguably not much simplification gained. I suppose the flipside is that *something* should depend on desktop-file- utils (ideally something low-level)... maybe any library (or app) that expects xdg mimetype support to be present, so for starters that could include stuff like: glib2, qt (similar arguments can be made for update-mime-desktop and gtk-update-icon- cache scriptlets) -- Rex -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
