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).
I would argue that we want our packages to provide a bug free experience
for our users. We can write what should happen in the Guidelines but if
there's a problem due to bugs and there's a workaround, we should also
endorse the workaround until the bug is resolved.
In this case, I'd be okay with the changes to iconcache with
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
'''
-Toshio