[Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: iconcache scriptlets

Rex Dieter rdieter at math.unl.edu
Tue Dec 5 21:27:54 UTC 2006

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> 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).
> In this case, I'd be okay with the changes to iconcache with

or I would have no problem with
0) hold publication of the new guideline pending one of:
  a) wait (indefinitely) until gtk2 bug is fixed
  b) give gtk2 maintainer reasonable time to fix (2-4 weeks?), then just do
  c) (I'm almost serious): make gtk2-fixbug170335-hack package, and use
  Requires(post,postun): gtk2-fixbug170335-hack

If possible, I'd rather avoid complicating the guidelines (and packagers)
lives with the, imo, unecessary extra baggage entailed with 1 or 2, by
introducing a new Requires(post,postun): xdg-utils
But, if the rest of the comittee is agreeable to the idea, I'll play along.

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

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list