On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Richard Shaw wrote: >> 1. If installing icons into in to /usr/share/pixmaps is indeed >> deprecated. > > It's not installing into /usr/share/pixmaps which is deprecated, but the > whole concept of unthemed, fixed-size icons. > >> 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. > > Because that's the standard path for unthemed, fixed-size icons. > >> While not intended as a guideline, it should be revised to showing a >> full path to an icon in /usr/share/icons/hicolor > > No. It makes no sense whatsoever to reference /usr/share/icons/hicolor with > an absolute path! > > The guideline should instead be changed to make it clear that using an > absolute path there is deprecated and the other method should be preferred. > >> (probably in the 48x48 directory since it's the minimum requirement[3].) > > That is just a suggestion, not a requirement. For example, KDE Plasma > doesn't actually use 48×48 anywhere, it uses 32×32 in Kickoff and 16×16 in > the classic menu, so if you're designing for Plasma, having only a 48×48 > icon is suboptimal. > >> 2. It may even be better to create a separate section for icons. >> Because the guidelines require us to "Requires:" a package when we >> install a file into a directory that the package does not own, >> theoretically all packages that install icons into >> /usr/share/icons/hicolor need to "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". This >> should probably be explained more directly. > > Not just theoretically, but pratically. This is a MUST requirement. > > The whole purpose of hicolor-icon-theme is to be required by any package > which installs any icons. It contains no actual icons, but just an empty > theme for applications to install their icons into. Any application > installing icons to hicolor MUST Require hicolor-icon-theme. Packages not > doing that must be fixed. Instead of responding to the points individually, I'll just say thank you for explaining [all of] it in a way that make sense! On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If you'd like to propose a new guideline/change to the existing one, that > would be great. It sounds like the consensus here for #1 is to deprecate > absolute paths. And to explain why the Requires are needed for #2. > > The way to propose a change is to write up a draft on the wiki and then open > a ticket for the FPC to look at it on https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ Of course. As usual, the main point of the post was to to gather comments and make sure the proposal was both sound and acceptable. Thanks, Richard -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
