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. > > Take 3rd party of it. This includes *all* apps using *any* toolkit. Does gtk1, QT or wxWindows implement the freedesktop icon caching? >>> 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'. > > OK, I'll say it one more time: Lacking > Requires(post): gtk2 > Requires(postun): gtk2 > *gtk2 may not be present at install-time*. As such, > gtk-update-icon-cache present in scriplets may not get run, thus, the > icondir timestamp may not get updated. > > Am I missing something? yes; the timestamp itself is important for gtk (and other toolkits following the freedesktop recommendations) only. Not touching the timestamp would cause only currently running 3rd party apps (using such a toolkit) not to recognize the new icons. Enrico -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
