On dim, 2007-01-21 at 16:16 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> (Granted, it's also an example of why I've constantly railed against
> Ubuntu for forking their version of debhelper. If they had paid heed to
> that or sent me a debhelper patch to review before deploying it, this
> could have possibly been av
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> > This was depicted as defeating the purpose of the cache. It might be
> > an acceptable solution during the transition.
> Are cache misses really so common that this would render the caching
> useless? Why?
While trying to dig the relevant discussions,
Loïc Minier wrote:
> > 1. Modify the icon cache code to look for real files if there is a cache
> >miss. Then we would not need a flag day.
>
> This was depicted as defeating the purpose of the cache. It might be
> an acceptable solution during the transition.
Are cache misses really so c
Hi Joey,
and thanks for reopening this discussion.
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> So currently, the first package that starts calling gtk-update-icon-cache
> will break all other packages that have icons in the same directory
This is correct.
> This means that there will be
Package: libgtk2.0-bin
Version: 2.8.20-4
Severity: normal
As mentioned in #369755:
It is interesting to note that the icon cache approach breaks backward
compatibility by not checking for real files in case of cache misses.
So currently, the first package that starts calling gtk-update-icon-ca
5 matches
Mail list logo
