On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 06:49:46AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:13:34AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>Looks like Core folks won't settle for anything in between status-quo
>>and 100% fix (no in-between-compromising like using xdg-utils), so let's
>>give it a shot.
>
>What is the 100% fix?
100% fix is loosely defined as satisfying the motivations/criteria
outlined in the latest version of the proposal.
Yes, but how would that work technically? Would an equivalent of
gtk-update-icon-cache be run on a directory upon first access to a
file within a folder with an aged index.theme? That would the only
sensible "100% fix" sound like.
Note, however, that 100% fix is outside the scope of packaging
guidelines. One thing that needs fixing wrt guidelines, however, is to
not regenerate icon cache on every single package install, hence, why
this newest version of the proposal drops the use of
gtk-update-icon-cache in %post/%postun. On this, everyone from Core
agrees (including Matthias, gtk maintainer).
And what about the vaccuum that this leaves behind? A non-updated gtk
cache mechanism that cannot share mmaped icons? I don't known how bad
that actually is, but why not wait with changing the guidelines until
any better mechanism is in place?
BTW
# time gtk-update-icon-cache; time ldconfig
real 0m0.003s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.002s
real 0m0.274s
user 0m0.130s
sys 0m0.143s
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net