[Fedora-packaging] Re: iconcache scriptlets

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Dec 5 20:55:26 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 14:05 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> In any case, nothing would break.  At worst, gtk apps would suffer a
> >> performance penalty, at least until gtk2 is fixed:
> >> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/170335
> >> (a personal packaging pet-peave).
> > Yes.  Which is a regression.
> > I agree that 170335 should be fixed, though.
> Bingo.  Bugs should be addressed in their proper domain, and I would 
> argue strongly that the proper domain in the gtk2 (bug #170335) case is 
> *gtk2*, not Packaging/Guidelines.

We have had and continue to have many pieces of guidelines which are
held up by or written to account for bugs in support packages (rpm,
scriptlets in Core packages, etc).

I would argue that we want our packages to provide a bug free experience
for our users.  We can write what should happen in the Guidelines but if
there's a problem due to bugs and there's a workaround, we should also
endorse the workaround until the bug is resolved.

In this case, I'd be okay with the changes to iconcache with
1) the addition of Requires(post): xdg-utils
2) note that the Requires(post) can go away after bug #NNNN is resolved
where that bug asks for hicolor-icon-theme (gtk2 requires h-i-t) to do

Requires(post): xdg-utils
touch --no-create /usr/share/icons/hicolor
%{_bindir}/xdg-icon-resource forceupdate --theme hicolor

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061205/578e4d30/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list