Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > 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). ... > In this case, I'd be okay with the changes to iconcache with or I would have no problem with 0) hold publication of the new guideline pending one of: a) wait (indefinitely) until gtk2 bug is fixed b) give gtk2 maintainer reasonable time to fix (2-4 weeks?), then just do it. c) (I'm almost serious): make gtk2-fixbug170335-hack package, and use Requires(post,postun): gtk2-fixbug170335-hack (: If possible, I'd rather avoid complicating the guidelines (and packagers) lives with the, imo, unecessary extra baggage entailed with 1 or 2, by introducing a new Requires(post,postun): xdg-utils But, if the rest of the comittee is agreeable to the idea, I'll play along. > 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 > ''' -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
