On 2012-01-11, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2012-01-11, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 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[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].) >>> >> 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. If there is a base name only, then desktop environment can use any icon of that name from icons tree. E.g. the scalable one. Or some low-resolution one if the context demands it (manually optimized icons looks better than scaling output). > I already mentioned that the update I'm proposing here isn't a binding > guideline, but to update the example Examples must show high quallity. A lot of people just do a copy and paste or argue in review that the code looks like in the guidelines. > from /usr/share/pixmaps to /usr/share/icons. > I didn't comentate on this change. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
