Awesome. Thanks for giving the straight scoop here. :-) I think Kalev Lember is one of the people who can fix this issue in gnome-shell-extension-background-logo (using the dark variant of the logo), so I'll cc him here and file a bug if not done already. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Zachary Snyder wrote: > Which, doesn't involve changing the extension. I was just playing around > with it to see how it ticked. > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Zachary Snyder <sadin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > All that needs to be done is the default logo needs to be changed to its > > non-white variant for 26. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 05:51:42PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> > But won't changing the extension mess up the logotype for people using > >> > a different background? Or is that not really a concern? > >> > >> Unless it's changed, the extension only works with the default > >> background anyway. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ design-team mailing list -- design-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to design-team-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
