On Saturday 14 February 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Icon_Cache > > Does that look good? Yep, pretty much. I found some things that could be improved, and reworded the first paragraph. > Couple questions, in the %postun, there's no || : for the touch. Is > that intentional? Yes. Only the final exit statuses of the scriptlets matter here. > If %posttrans should prove controversial (I don't see a problem but if > it is) is including the gtk-update-icon-cache call in %post in its > modified state acceptable to the proposal as a whole? I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean that if %posttrans for some reason is not accepted, just move the g-u-i-c call from %posttrans to %post? I suppose that would work, but it would result in icons that are removed on package upgrades left behind in the GTK icon cache. Dunno if that's a problem at all, but my initial proposal did not have that issue: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00138.html -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
