On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 22:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "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: [snip] > 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. SVG is also definitely a reasonable alternative to png -- it gives scalable icons which will be more important as we begin to get devices with resolutions on both the high and the low end of the spectrum Jeremy -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
