On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 07:41 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 7:20 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think updating the hicolor-icon-theme package every time we add a new app to > > Fedora, or any time such an app changes its icon, is somewhere beyond impractical. > > I'm not sure I understand the value of icons when searching for > applications that you haven't already installed. But perhaps there is > value in using icons for updates. My reasoning is, most people should > have icon awareness for applications they use a lot. > > So is there a compromise here. Would it be worth embedding an icon > name into repodata for a package, and if they icon exists on the > system then the gui tools will use the icon in reference to a package > update? But I don't know how you would drive that information into > the repodata Is that something packagedb would have to do? For > applications not already on the system, an icon representing the comps > group or rpm group for which the package belongs is perhaps pulled > from the hi-color set on system and displayed instead? > > But the underlying question that I cannot answer is if there is a real > benefit to exposing icons at all. I'm not sure there is. And even if > there is, I'm not sure its worth the complexity of implementing it. Just a icon? I don't think its worth the trouble. But lets think of who would actually want to browse the collection and what information he'll expect to find there. Looking at the pie in the sky I see a software catalog like thingie. Think collection of screenshots, a screencast, detailed list of features, etc... all metadata that can be hosted by fedora and downloaded on demand, whenever some chap decides to actually use the graphical package management interface (and happens to have an internet connection) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
