On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:33:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > I've updated the iconcache proposal: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache > per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting. > > In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed): > Requires(post): xdg-utils > Requires(postun): xdg-utils Hi, I have two questions (which will have been answered, but I haven't caught up with all traffic on this topic, so please answer again :): a) "If none of the package's existing dependencies themselves already depend on xdg-utils3, include ..." I wouldn't rely on dependencies providing dependencies. Sure, we do remove some redundancy technically, but cut&paste methods are used more often than reading the guidelines, recursive dependencies may change and so on. Let's keep it simple and always require it. b) "someday when xdg-utils becomes universally available (hopefully, this will include F*7)," While the xdg-utils sound like a trivial tool the sentence seems to imply that there are larger obstacles to getting this done. Why? If this improves/simplifies package quality then who would block this? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpygBhnnHJpK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
