Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

Jerry James loganjerry at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 17:42:59 UTC 2011


I need some advice for a package review I'm doing.  The package owns
all the directories from /usr/share/icons/hicolor down to
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, where it stores its icons.  When
I objected that these directories were already owned by
hicolor-icon-theme, the packager said:

"This package does not require hicolor-icon-theme neither implicit nor explecit.
Acourding to the Package guidlines (The directory is owned by a package which
is not required for your package to function) this package must own these
directories." [sic]

On my system, with lots of icon-using packages installed,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor is owned by 3 packages: hicolor-icon-theme,
fedora-logos, and setroubleshoot, so there is precedent to back up the
packager in this case.  On the other hand, there are gobs of packages
with icons below that directory that do NOT own
/usr/share/icons/hicolor.  I haven't been able to find anything about
this issue in the packaging guidelines;
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
doesn't address this issue.

Are the fedora-logos and setroubleshoot packages doing it the right
way, and other icon-installing packages need to be fixed?  Are they
doing it the wrong way, and should be fixed themselves?  Does
ownership of that directory depend on some other feature of the
package?

Thanks,
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/


More information about the devel mailing list