[Fedora-packaging] Re: iconcache proposal, v2
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Fri Dec 15 00:30:24 UTC 2006
Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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
>> 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?
blockers? None, that I'm aware of.
Well, a) is a just pre-cursor to b). I'd like to someday not need the
I'm just as ok with Requiring it's unconditional use too.
More information about the Fedora-packaging