[Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: iconcache scriptlets

[Rex Dieter]

Enrico Scholz wrote:

> rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) writes:
> 
>>>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache
>>> ...
>>> Why the 'touch' stuff?
>>
>> The fdo spec mandates the timestamp of the installed-to icon dir
>> *must* be updated.
> 
> What is a 'fdo spec'?

http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html#implementation_notes

>>> At least 'gtk-update-icon-cache' knows a '--force'
>>> option which should have the wanted effect but adds less clutter.
>>
>> Dropping the 'touch' and using *only* gtk-update-icon-cache --force
>> (or even xdg-icon-resource forceupdate) would require the tool to be
>> present at install-time, and necessitate Requires(post,postun): foo
>> which, imo, should be avoided, if at all possible.
> 
> I do not see how
> 
> | gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet --force %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
> vs.
> | touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
> | %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
> would led to your conclusion.

Consider the case that gtk2 (and gtk-update-icon-cache) is not present at
install-time (since we currently don't Requires(post,postun): gtk2), then
the icondir timestamp will fail to be updated.

-- Rex