Enrico Scholz wrote: > rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Rex Dieter) writes: > >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache >>> ... >>> Why the 'touch' stuff? >> >> The fdo spec mandates the timestamp of the installed-to icon dir >> *must* be updated. > > What is a 'fdo spec'? http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html#implementation_notes >>> 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. > > I do not see how > > | gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet --force %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > vs. > | touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > | %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > would led to your conclusion. Consider the case that gtk2 (and gtk-update-icon-cache) is not present at install-time (since we currently don't Requires(post,postun): gtk2), then the icondir timestamp will fail to be updated. -- Rex -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
