Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42:20AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:33:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> I've updated the iconcache proposal:
>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache
>> per the suggestions made at the recent fedora-packaging meeting.
>>
>> In short, simplify to use xdg-utils, and add (when needed):
>> Requires(post): xdg-utils
>> Requires(postun): xdg-utils
> Hi,
>
> I have two questions (which will have been answered, but I haven't
> caught up with all traffic on this topic, so please answer again :):
>
> a) "If none of the package's existing dependencies themselves already
> depend on xdg-utils3, include ..."
>
> I wouldn't rely on dependencies providing dependencies. Sure, we do
...
>
> b) "someday when xdg-utils becomes universally available (hopefully,
> this will include F*7),"
>
> While the xdg-utils sound like a trivial tool the sentence seems to
> imply that there are larger obstacles to getting this done. Why? If
> this improves/simplifies package quality then who would block this?
blockers? None, that I'm aware of.
Well, a) is a just pre-cursor to b). I'd like to someday not need the
Requires: xdg-utils
at all.
I'm just as ok with Requiring it's unconditional use too.
-- Rex