Re: Proposal for update to packaging guidelines for icon files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Richard Shaw wrote:
> Nowhere did I suggest that the "Short name without extension" example
> should be removed, only that the full pathname example should be
> updated to use /usr/share/icon/hicolor over /usr/share/pixmaps.

The point is that it makes no sense whatsoever to reference /usr/share/icons 
with an absolute path! The whole point of /usr/share/icons is to allow 
themable icons with potentially multiple sizes, NOT one hardcoded icon. 
Using an absolute path does the latter and does defeats the purpose of using 
/usr/share/icons.

        Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux