On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 21:34 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > 5717 is still a lot less than 6597 (2.28.0-1) and this is the source of > bugs like this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573811 Yeah, symlinks are relatively easy to put back. But if the target went missing, there's not much I can do. And yes, this cleanup effort unfortunately landed very late in the 2.30 cycle, and has affected not just your apps, but GNOME as well. Anyway, I fully support the effort of the artists behind gnome-icon-theme. Nobody can support an entirely undocumented and fuzzy api of 6000+ names and hope to a) ever get another icon theme completed or b) keep their sanity. I've asked upstream to put out a clear statement early in the 2.31 cycle (ie NOW) that henceforth only the icon names guaranteed by the icon-naming spec can be relied on from gnome-icon-theme. And I am considering splitting off a -legacy package from gnome-icon-theme in rawhide, containing all the legacy symlinks. Part of the complication here is that the integration of the GTK+ stock system with icon themes currently still relies on these 'legacy' symlinks as well. For that, see http://live.gnome.org/GtkNamingSpecInvestigation Matthias -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
