Rex Dieter wrote:
Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 07:43 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Because, frankly, poo-pooing the current proposal/guidelines in favor
>> of some handy-wavy theoretical lacking-actual-implementation
>> solution, is no solution.
> Well, the point is, the current proposal does not address the "multiple
> packages needlessly updating caches multiple times" problem at all.
Fair enough, I'll investigate hooking into rpm's %posttrans hooks. My
findings so far are promising.
I formally withdraw the iconcache proposal as-is, pending investigation
of the previously unaddressed "needlessly updating cache multiple times"