On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2012-01-11, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-01-11, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. If installing icons into in to /usr/share/pixmaps is indeed
>>> deprecated. 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.
>>> While not intended as a guideline, it should be revised to showing a
>>> full path to an icon in /usr/share/icons/hicolor (probably in the
>>> 48x48 directory since it's the minimum requirement[3].)
>>>
>> This would forbid desktop environment to pick up more appropriate format
>> (e.g. SVG) and made other icon variants useless just vasting a space.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what your saying. A 48x48 icon is already a
> minimum requirement, regardless of my proposal. But I don't see how
> anything I proposed makes any other icon sizes useless.
>
If you put absolute path to icon file into desktop file, then desktop
environment can use only this one exact icon file (you suggest 48×48
bitmap) for the application.
Nowhere did I suggest that the "Short name without extension" example
should be removed, only that the full pathname example should be
updated to use /usr/share/icon/hicolor over /usr/share/pixmaps.
Thanks,
Richard