On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:30:24PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > 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. Then let's vote on it. > 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. I'm fine with the proposal as is (wouldn't mind adding strict requirements on xdg-utils3 and removing "|| :", but that's just nice to have ;), so +1 from here -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpa4jPB7cmqh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
