Kalev Lember wrote:
On 11/30/2015 07:09 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 07:11 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>>> I missed that, but I would say gedit is being erroneous by adding
>>> dependencies, at least with respect to desktop-file-utils.
>>>
>>
>> I added the dependency for a new enough desktop-file-utils build
>> because the desktop-file-utils package does not contain the file
>> trigger section before 0.22-6
>
> Sure, but that's conceptually no different than the case where gedit
> owned the scriptlet but (also) had no dependency on desktop-file-utils.
>
> either way, if desktop-file-utils is not present, the effect is nothing
> happens. We only care about the case when desktop-file-utils *is*
> present and that case already works without adding any package
> dependencies.
Rex, do you by any chance remember why the packaging guidelines say to
not add a dependency on desktop-file-utils? Does KDE not want the
dependency?
I don't recall exactly, but I think one reason was because it would be added
a hundred times all over. In this particular case, we're saving .spec
scriptlets but (re)adding dependencies, so arguably not much simplification
gained.
I suppose the flipside is that *something* should depend on desktop-file-
utils (ideally something low-level)... maybe any library (or app) that
expects xdg mimetype support to be present, so for starters that could
include stuff like:
glib2, qt
(similar arguments can be made for update-mime-desktop and gtk-update-icon-
cache scriptlets)
-- Rex