Enrico Scholz wrote: > rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Rex Dieter) writes: > >> I posted this proposal awhile back: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache >> >> Don't remember seeing much (any?) feedback, so everyone must agree with >> it. (: >> >> I'd like to get this discussed and ratified by the committee. > > Why the 'touch' stuff? The fdo spec mandates the timestamp of the installed-to icon dir *must* be updated. > At least 'gtk-update-icon-cache' knows a '--force' > option which should have the wanted effect but adds less clutter. Dropping the 'touch' and using *only* gtk-update-icon-cache --force (or even xdg-icon-resource forceupdate) would require the tool to be present at install-time, and necessitate Requires(post,postun): foo which, imo, should be avoided, if at all possible. Further, one of the major motivations for the proposal was to avoid the use of of any toolkit-specific tool (ie, gtk-update-icon-cache). I (and many others) have long argued that it is inappropriate to shoe-horn a toolkit-specific gtk-update-icon-cache into *every* package installing icons. I would like to hope that updating the packaging guidelines thusly would "motivate" the gtk2 maintainer to do something about the long-standing: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/170335 -- Rex -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
