Jesse Keating wrote:
On Friday 22 December 2006 08:37, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Sigh, problem being, we've now been waiting 14+ months for this
> theoretical better mechanism. You're willing to wait indefinitely? Not
> me. Further, I vehemently argue that problem is outside the scope of
> packaging guidelines. Let's try to keep focus on what we (as packaging
> committee) *can* solve, please.
I'm not keen on creating rules to "force" the issue though.
IMO, we're not trying to force anything here. We're trying to fix what
is in our domain to fix. Most feedback I've received (even that from
Matthias) agrees this is a *good thing*.
Lets not make this a political thing.
This is *so* not a political thing. I regret ever even treading on
those troubled waters(1). I've resigned myself on trying to solve the
*technical* problem only, at least that which is within our domain to do so.
We're not going to go ban the use of ldconfig in %post
until the rpm folks work out a way to do it in stages when needed, so why
would we do it for icon cache too?
imo, ldconfig example isn't a good one, but I get your point.
Difference being here, messing with ldconfig can horribly break things.
A stale iconcache doesn't break anything, at worst only affects app
startup time (a little).
How about we turn this around a bit, instead of focusing on the bad, how
about something good that could come of this:
installs/updates will go a heck of a lot faster, ~0.2-0.5 seconds per
package! I wonder how faster a default Fedora install would be. (:
(1) Yes, I got a little pissy when my proposed cron-job solution was
rejected out-of-hand, for some better, unimplimented, theoretical one.
I'm over it, I've moved on, I feel better now. Really.