Axel Thimm wrote: > 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 ... >> >> 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? blockers? None, that I'm aware of. Well, a) is a just pre-cursor to b). I'd like to someday not need the Requires: xdg-utils at all. I'm just as ok with Requiring it's unconditional use too. -- Rex -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
