On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 06:49:46AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:13:34AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > >>Looks like Core folks won't settle for anything in between status-quo > >>and 100% fix (no in-between-compromising like using xdg-utils), so let's > >>give it a shot. > > > >What is the 100% fix? > > 100% fix is loosely defined as satisfying the motivations/criteria > outlined in the latest version of the proposal. Yes, but how would that work technically? Would an equivalent of gtk-update-icon-cache be run on a directory upon first access to a file within a folder with an aged index.theme? That would the only sensible "100% fix" sound like. > Note, however, that 100% fix is outside the scope of packaging > guidelines. One thing that needs fixing wrt guidelines, however, is to > not regenerate icon cache on every single package install, hence, why > this newest version of the proposal drops the use of > gtk-update-icon-cache in %post/%postun. On this, everyone from Core > agrees (including Matthias, gtk maintainer). And what about the vaccuum that this leaves behind? A non-updated gtk cache mechanism that cannot share mmaped icons? I don't known how bad that actually is, but why not wait with changing the guidelines until any better mechanism is in place? BTW # time gtk-update-icon-cache; time ldconfig real 0m0.003s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.002s real 0m0.274s user 0m0.130s sys 0m0.143s -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp7HKawnCLIs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
