On 4 September 2017 at 11:45, Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I also don't think that nagging upstream about these missing icons is really > welcome - most of the times even upstream doesn't have a graphic artist > available. I disagree here, sometimes nagging upstream is the best way to tell them that something needs to change. 64x64 isn't really a high bar, and if upstream doesn't have resources and is receptive to the downstream re-branding the project with a new icon then I think it's fine for the package maintainer to ask the Fedora design team for input. Also note, applications don't have to do this; it's not like they're going to fall out of the distro -- they're still installable on the CLI using DNF. > This can be a long process and therefore I don't think it is safe to raise > the minimum size requirement to 64x64 any time soon. I have already raised the requirement for F28. For F29/F30 I think 128x128 would be a good minimum too. From my point of view the best applications in the software center already ship large icons, and the applications with tiny icons are usually of poor quality, buggy, or just unmaintained upstream. I think it's fine for a software center to do the equivalent of "you must be this high to ride" and if we didn't keep asking more of upstreams we'd still be in a world with no translations, no release information and no screenshots. Richard. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
