[arch-general] .desktop and install files in general & Eclipse package not complete?

Doug Newgard scimmia at archlinux.info
Tue May 6 12:35:05 EDT 2014

On 2014-05-06 11:10, Marcel Korpel wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia at archlinux.info> 
> wrote:
>> On 2014-05-06 08:45, Marcel Korpel wrote:
>>> update-desktop-database -q
> […]
>> Have you bothered finding out what that command actually does? Once 
>> you do,
>> you'd see that it's useless in this case.
> Ah, it's only necessary to update the MIME cache, so files with a
> certain extension are automatically loaded within a certain
> application? Sorry, I don't use a desktop environment, so I didn't
> know what the behaviour was.
>>> $ pacman -Qo gtk-update-icon-cache
>>> /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache is owned by gtk-update-icon-cache 
>>> 2.24.23-1
>>> So shouldn't those packages with an icon theme depend on
>>> gtk-update-icon-cache instead of just on hicolor-icon-theme?
>> eclipse depends on gtk2, which depends on gtk-update-icon-cache, which
>> depends on hicolor-icon-theme. The deps are already satisfied, which 
>> is why
>> namcap didn't complain.
> So, about eclipse: it isn't necessary, but in general: the Wiki should
> say that gtk-update-icon-cache should be included as a dependency (if
> it isn't satisfied by something else) instead of hicolor-icon-theme,
> which doesn't provide gtk-update-icon-cache. Am I right?

If you're going to run a program, it obviously needs to be a dependency.

>>> Is the Eclipse package wrong or is the Wiki not complete (also note
>>> that the recommended install file of gedit [4] isn't that complete: 
>>> it
>>> doesn't contain a call to gtk-update-icon-cache as it doesn't contain
>>> a hicolor icon theme; perhaps we should look for another example)?
>> If it doesn't install an icon, there's obviously no need to call
>> gtk-update-icon-cache.
> No, of course not, but the Wiki says: "The gedit package contains a
> very generic install file". However, the gedit install file isn't as
> generic as claimed: it isn't targeted at updating the icon cache.

That section is very out of date. Looks like the substance hasn't really 
changed since it was first created in 2008, even though the install file 
has changed. The pkgname variable referenced hasn't even existed since 

> Regards,
> Marcel

More information about the arch-general mailing list