"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 22:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One point: I'd suggest that we *not* require conversion of upstream
>> icon files to a uniform file format, so long as what upstream supplies
>> will work (ie, please no "thou shalt convert xpm to png" in the
>> guidelines).
> I'm pretty sure that png and xpm are supported at a minimum, possibly
> other formats as well.
Hmmm ... using file(1) on an F-8 workstation I find this under
/usr/share/pixmaps and /usr/share/icons:
141 ASCII text (.theme and .icon extensions)
229 GLS_BINARY_LSB_FIRST (no idea what these are)
19 JPEG
8890 PNG
1 TIFF
12 TrueType font data (icon-theme.cache files)
16 X (.xpm)
686 XML (.svg)
236 gzip (.svgz)
How many of these icons actually work as expected is an interesting
question, but clearly there's a variety of formats that packages *think*
are supported. PNG is by far the majority though, and it looks like the
usages of the stranger formats are confined to a few packages each.
Maybe we *should* standardize on PNG here --- it appears that only a few
packages would be affected by a conversion requirement.
regards, tom lane
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
