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.
If there is a base name only, then desktop environment can use any icon
of that name from icons tree. E.g. the scalable one. Or some
low-resolution one if the context demands it (manually optimized icons
looks better than scaling output).
I already mentioned that the update I'm proposing here isn't
a binding
guideline, but to update the example
Examples must show high quallity. A lot of people just do a copy and
paste or argue in review that the code looks like in the guidelines.
from /usr/share/pixmaps to /usr/share/icons.
I didn't comentate on this change.
-- Petr