[Fedora-packaging] Re: iconcache proposal, v2

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Dec 14 23:45:36 UTC 2006

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42:20AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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
> Hi,
> 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?

And the third of the two questions is: ;)

c) why is xdg-icon-resource's exit code thrown away? We do know it
   will exist (explicit direct or indirect Requires:) contrary to
   gtk-update-icon-cache, so if it fails it probably indicates some
   system error that should propagate up to the user and get hos
   attention (e.g. write failure to the cache/fs full etc.)
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/20061215/9a93238e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list