[Fedora-packaging] Re: iconcache proposal, v2

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Dec 14 23:42:20 UTC 2006

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


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
   remove some redundancy technically, but cut&paste methods are used
   more often than reading the guidelines, recursive dependencies may
   change and so on. Let's keep it simple and always require it.

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?
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061215/7dca96c3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list