On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 14:05 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> In any case, nothing would break. At worst, gtk apps would suffer a > >> performance penalty, at least until gtk2 is fixed: > >> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/170335 > >> (a personal packaging pet-peave). > > > Yes. Which is a regression. > > I agree that 170335 should be fixed, though. > > Bingo. Bugs should be addressed in their proper domain, and I would > argue strongly that the proper domain in the gtk2 (bug #170335) case is > *gtk2*, not Packaging/Guidelines. We have had and continue to have many pieces of guidelines which are held up by or written to account for bugs in support packages (rpm, scriptlets in Core packages, etc). I would argue that we want our packages to provide a bug free experience for our users. We can write what should happen in the Guidelines but if there's a problem due to bugs and there's a workaround, we should also endorse the workaround until the bug is resolved. In this case, I'd be okay with the changes to iconcache with 1) the addition of Requires(post): xdg-utils 2) note that the Requires(post) can go away after bug #NNNN is resolved where that bug asks for hicolor-icon-theme (gtk2 requires h-i-t) to do this: ''' Requires(post): xdg-utils [...] %post touch --no-create /usr/share/icons/hicolor %{_bindir}/xdg-icon-resource forceupdate --theme hicolor ''' -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
