Loïc Minier wrote: > So I understand that we will need a second NMU round after doing this > change? > > 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: Please bear in mind that I'm involved in this discussion only as the maintainer of debhelper. Whatever solution Debian decides on and implements is the one debhelper will use. I have no particular expertise with gtk, icons, or icon caches, and am the wrong person to vet your designs (except for the parts of them that touch debhelper, which for a good design in Debian, should be a very narrow part). The only other thing I've brought to this is an awareness that I think others share that this issue needs to be resolved *soon* -- the longer Debian goes without something handling updating the icon caches, the more users will break their system by installing some third-party deb or other thing that creates icon caches. So based on that, it's probably not suprising that as soon as Joss sent me a patch that is a) working and b) has a transition plan that dosesn't involve (much of) a flag day, I accepted it. If a better thing gets implemented, I'll want to change debhelper to use it. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature