Proposal for update to packaging guidelines for icon files

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Thu Jan 12 00:03:47 UTC 2012

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:22:34AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Hmm.. Where to start. A recent discussion[1] and package review got me
> thinking. I'll divide this into two problems/proposals.
> 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[2]. 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[3].)
> 2. It may even be better to create a separate section for icons.
> Because the guidelines require us to "Requires:" a package when we
> install a file into a directory that the package does not own,
> theoretically all packages that install icons into
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor need to "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". This
> should probably be explained more directly.
> Thanks,
> Richard
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
If you'd like to propose a new guideline/change to the existing one, that
would be great.  It sounds like the consensus here for #1 is to deprecate
absolute paths.  And to explain why the Requires are needed for #2.

The way to propose a change is to write up a draft on the wiki and then open
a ticket for the FPC to look at it on

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list