On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 15:27 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 14:05 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> >> In any case, nothing would break. At worst, gtk apps would suffer a
>> >> performance penalty, at least until gtk2 is fixed:
>> >>
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/170335
>> >> (a personal packaging pet-peave).
>>
>> > Yes. Which is a regression.
>> > I agree that 170335 should be fixed, though.
>>
>> Bingo. Bugs should be addressed in their proper domain, and I would
>> argue strongly that the proper domain in the gtk2 (bug #170335) case is
>> *gtk2*, not Packaging/Guidelines.
>
> We have had and continue to have many pieces of guidelines which are
> held up by or written to account for bugs in support packages (rpm,
> scriptlets in Core packages, etc).
...
> In this case, I'd be okay with the changes to iconcache with
or I would have no problem with
0) hold publication of the new guideline pending one of:
a) wait (indefinitely) until gtk2 bug is fixed
b) give gtk2 maintainer reasonable time to fix (2-4 weeks?), then just do
it.
c) (I'm almost serious): make gtk2-fixbug170335-hack package, and use
Requires(post,postun): gtk2-fixbug170335-hack
(:
I could live with holding the guidelines pending updates to the core
packages as well. I'd add d) hicolor-iconcache utilitizes xdg-utils.
If possible, I'd rather avoid complicating the guidelines (and
packagers)
lives with the, imo, unecessary extra baggage entailed with 1 or 2, by
introducing a new Requires(post,postun): xdg-utils
But, if the rest of the comittee is agreeable to the idea, I'll play along.
True but there's a good possibility the changes won't be implemented for
all versions of FC anyhow. That means that we'll have to carry separate
instructions for FCX and FCY no matter what.
-Toshio