On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 15:14 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Do shared-mime-info and desktop-file-utils fall into the same category > > or does some functionality of programs fail to work if > > desktop-file-utils and shared-mime-info aren't run? > > The latter. > > > Your post makes me think that some Core GNOME applications (nautilus? > > gnome-panel? gnome-vfs?) make use of the data generated by > > desktop-file-utils and shared-mime-info but nothing else. Is that true > > or just a guess? > > Gnome in general, yes. That's why I'm arguing it should be the GNOME > libs/core bits that should depend on these, not (all) individual apps. > If I'm reading your responses correctly, shared-mime-info and desktop-file-utils must be run in order for Core Gnome to function correctly. However, the application itself can run under KDE or another environment with no errors or loss of functionality. I don't see a problem with changing the shared-mime-info section if that's the case. (shared-mime-info's dependencies percolate through to libgnome which should be required by anything depending on it and it does have a scriptlet to update on install.) dekstop-file-utils doesn't seem to have either a dependency into the Core of Gnome or a scriptlet to care for the case where it is installed later so even though this seems like a valid concept, those issues should be resolved first. > > shared-mime-info seems to run itself on installation and update but > > desktop-file-utils does not. If desktop-file-utils is made optional for > > the scriptlets, the desktop-file-utils Core package should run itself on > > install. > > I'm not arguing that running them should be optional, only that the > additional dependancies for them not be added/Required. > This is what I mean: No Requires line. Scriptlet contains a call to the mime/desktop-file utility that does not fail if they are not available on install/uninstall. I assume we're on the same page but stumbling over my imprecise wording? > > (Hmm.. gtk2 doesn't run gtk-update-icon-cache on install... is > > this a packaging bug? > > IMO, yes. > > >Or perhaps this bug would resolve it: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=170335 > > Yes too. (that's my bug). I saw :-) Thanks for adding the update to add a scriptlet as well. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
