Proposal for update to packaging guidelines for icon files
hobbes1069 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 11 18:34:08 UTC 2012
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Petr Pisar <ppisar at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2012-01-11, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Petr Pisar <ppisar at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-11, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 1. If installing icons into in to /usr/share/pixmaps is indeed
>>>> deprecated. Then we need to update the packaging guidelines for the
>>>> Desktop Files section. In the "Icon tag in Desktop Files" section
>>>> it explicitly shows a full path to an icon file in /usr/share/pixmaps.
>>>> While not intended as a guideline, it should be revised to showing a
>>>> full path to an icon in /usr/share/icons/hicolor (probably in the
>>>> 48x48 directory since it's the minimum requirement.)
>>> This would forbid desktop environment to pick up more appropriate format
>>> (e.g. SVG) and made other icon variants useless just vasting a space.
>> I'm not sure I understand what your saying. A 48x48 icon is already a
>> minimum requirement, regardless of my proposal. But I don't see how
>> anything I proposed makes any other icon sizes useless.
> If you put absolute path to icon file into desktop file, then desktop
> environment can use only this one exact icon file (you suggest 48×48
> bitmap) for the application.
Nowhere did I suggest that the "Short name without extension" example
should be removed, only that the full pathname example should be
updated to use /usr/share/icon/hicolor over /usr/share/pixmaps.
More information about the devel