On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42:20AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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? And the third of the two questions is: ;) c) why is xdg-icon-resource's exit code thrown away? We do know it will exist (explicit direct or indirect Requires:) contrary to gtk-update-icon-cache, so if it fails it probably indicates some system error that should propagate up to the user and get hos attention (e.g. write failure to the cache/fs full etc.) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpJaKrexTciE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
