David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost> writes: > In short - the change is small, relatively safe, should not result in > any difference in final state for the general case where someone > installs a package which uses share/applications/mimeinfo.cache, and > could significantly benefit some people building a small set of > packages on smaller & less mainstream boxes, and _very_ slightly > benefit a small number using binary packages. > > Against which, it is a tiny bit of complexity, and does not benefit or > affect the majority of users. > > I think that's a fair summary from my perspective :) > > I'm obviously in favour, though I agree there are valid arguments to > decide either way, I just wanted to opportunity to summarise what I > believed them to be :-p Thanks for the detailed explanation. I have adjusted my view to "I don't mind at all if you do this" given the mechanics of how update-desktop-database works, and that it's easy to revert if it turns out to be more troublesome than we think. The only other comment was an objection from nia@, and I'd like to hear an updated comment now, as I think that was based on the idea of functionality loss, and of course what other people think.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature