rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Rex Dieter) writes: >>>> 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 Oh, I see. The 'touch' makes a differences when user installed a 3rd party application with a 3rd party toolkit which is following freedesktop.org iconcache-recommendations. >> | 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), Please don't write 'Requires(post,postun):'; dunno whether you meant it symbolically only. But it's wrong and sickly. > then the icondir timestamp will fail to be updated. This would not make a difference: in both cases ('touch' and '--force') the iconcache will be updated in the same manner during the installation of 'gtk-update-icon-cache'. Currently (with FC5 gtk2), icon-cache won't be updated because gtk2's scriptlets do not call 'gtk-update-icon-cache'. Enrico -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
