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
(:
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.
1) the addition of Requires(post): xdg-utils
2) note that the Requires(post) can go away after bug #NNNN is resolved
where that bug asks for hicolor-icon-theme (gtk2 requires h-i-t) to do
this:
'''
Requires(post): xdg-utils
[...]
%post
touch --no-create /usr/share/icons/hicolor
%{_bindir}/xdg-icon-resource forceupdate --theme hicolor
'''