Le vendredi 13 juillet 2007 à 15:03 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit : > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > 6. Update dh_icons to change its behaviour for packages shipping > > index.theme files: such packages will always generate the icon > > cache and have a dependency on libgtk2.0-bin. > > So I understand that we will need a second NMU round after doing this > change? Only for a handful of packages (currently I count two). > I proposed a slightly different approach at: > <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=10;bug=407837> > with basically one more level of indirection (directories for icon > caches are not directly updated by the maintainer scripts; instead a > wrapper updates them if necessary / possible) > > I requested feedback from Joey Hess directly, and mentionned the idea > to Josselin, but didn't receive any comment on the benefits of this > level of indirection. The advantages are numerous IMO: > - enabling / disabling of icon caches can be controlled centrally; no > need to bin NMU packages to update their maintainer scripts [1] > - we don't need a dependency on libgtk2.0-bin; all icon caches can be > generated when libgtk2.0-bin is installed > - smooth transition to triggers where we would only update the cache > once for all packages > - it's possible to blacklist / whitelist directories centrally > - easy update of all the icon caches of the system I'm not sure these benefits will be of real use, but if people prefer things to be done this way, I have nothing against writing the needed changes. The libgtk2.0-bin package would still have to be installed by something, in this case. Maybe as a Recommends: for gnome-icon-theme? Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=