Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px
hughsient at gmail.com
Thu Oct 2 09:17:53 UTC 2014
On 1 October 2014 17:15, Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it only me, that is thinking, that all there rules to make things looks
> prettier in Gnome Software or you package will get excluded if you dont
> live up to the rules
It's probably not just you.
> is a little hostile for packagers.
Actually, I'm trying to work upstream as much as possible. If you read
my blog, I've been doing frequent updates on just how many upstream
bugtrackers and maintainer emails I've sent. tl;dr: many hundreds.
Packagers are going to have to get involved if upstream is dead, but
that's the cost of being a package maintainer of obsolete or dead
software without letting it die by obsoleting it and removing it from
> I understand that Richard, want his application to look so good as possible,
> but in the end it upstreams project there decides if they want to ship at
> buttugly icon in 16x16
Yes, it's totally up to them, but this should not preclude us making
rules for the workstation.
> Gnome software could workaround it by have some kind of cool frame to put
> around the icons if they are to small to look good in the context of Gnome
Designing an application for the lowest common denominator does not
give you a high-quality cohesive application that's easy to use and
nice on the eye. It gives you a miss-mash of ugly noise that's hard to
use. I think it's fine that we are essentially saying "you have to do
X, Y, Z to be showcased on the workstation". I've essentially slipped
into the role of the person making the decisions about the software
installer on the workstation product, and also upstream maintainer of
most of this stuff. If anybody wants to refer any of my decisions up
to the workstation working group, I'd be happy to talk to them, but
I've a feeling they would be *less* forgiving than I'm currently
More information about the devel