On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 22:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 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