[Fedora-packaging] Re: iconcache proposal, v2

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:30:24PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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:
> >>> 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
> ...
> >>
> >> 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.

Then let's vote on it.

> Well, a) is a just pre-cursor to b).  I'd like to someday not need the
> Requires: xdg-utils
> at all.
> 
> I'm just as ok with Requiring it's unconditional use too.

I'm fine with the proposal as is (wouldn't mind adding strict
requirements on xdg-utils3 and removing "|| :", but that's just nice
to have ;), so +1 from here
-- 
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/aeba4abf/attachment.sig>