packaging: new spec filed idea

Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek jakub.rusinek at
Fri Jan 18 16:49:37 UTC 2008

2008/1/18, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at>:
> On Jan 18, 2008 7:20 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting at> wrote:
> > I think updating the hicolor-icon-theme package every time we add a new
> app to
> > Fedora, or any time such an app changes its icon, is somewhere beyond
> impractical.
> I'm not sure I understand the value of icons when searching for
> applications that you haven't already installed.  But perhaps there is
> value in using icons for updates. My reasoning is, most people should
> have icon awareness for applications they use a lot.
> So is there a compromise here.   Would it be worth embedding an icon
> name into repodata for a package, and if they icon exists on the
> system then the gui tools will use the icon in reference to a package
> update?  But I don't know how you would drive that information into
> the repodata  Is that something packagedb would have to do?  For
> applications not already on the system, an icon representing the comps
> group or rpm group for which the package belongs is perhaps pulled
> from the hi-color set on system and displayed instead?
> But the underlying question that I cannot answer is if there is a real
> benefit to exposing icons at all.  I'm not sure there is. And even if
> there is, I'm not sure its worth the complexity of implementing it.
> -jef
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at

Listen, PackageKit displays unuseful icons in his main package browsing
Replacing them with appropriate icons from icon theme would be some

Everybody knows gimp, so searching for gimp would be faster and easier if
people would see gimp's icons only for gimp (not for gimp-libs etc).

It would make PK look like gnome-app-install in Ubuntu (which I personally
didn't liked), but it's just usability improvement.

Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the devel mailing list