Re: Etch Artwork
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:35:48PM -0400, Michael F. Lamb wrote:
> I respectfully disagree. I do not think the default icon set and themes
> from GNOME and KDE upstream are adequate. I feel the advantages of a
> "very polished" and uniform look in the default Etch desktop is more
> important than screenshot consistency or consistency with other
> distributions.
I wasn't aware you wanted to have a single Icon theme for both KDE and
GNOME. (Ubuntu doesn't have that either, AFAIK)
> Before more deliberation, I must acknowledge that I'm just one opinion
> out of so many, and a newbie to participating in these discussions, at
> that. So instead of more blather, perhaps I should simply ask:
> 1. Is there room for debate? Is discussion constructive, or annoying? :-)
Sure.
> 2. How do these sort of decisions normally get made when there is a
> difference of opinion?
> 3. In the end, who has the final say?
I guess the GNOME and KDE teams, respectively, should have a strong
voice in this. We should not overrule their veto of new icon sets or
engine defaults.
> But, I think that if someone *does* come up with a "100% coverage" icon
> set and a GTK/KDE/GDM/etc theme that is "better" or more "Debian
> flavored" than the upstream default, it should be not be ignored as a
> candidate for Debian's default desktop. I think what Ubuntu has done in
> this regard (orange-coloring some stock icons, Ubuntu logo in the panel)
> demonstrates the power of a "polished" feel.
OK, but they only changed a select few icons, and did not create a whole
new set AFAIK (On the other hand, Fedora seems to be doing that for
their next release)
> The CC-licensed icons themselves aside, will Etch follow the
> freedesktop.org icon naming spec and icon theme spec?
I am not sure; again this probably depends on the GNOME and KDE desktops
themselves, and whether the version we will ship with etch does that
upstream. I am no expert on this, though.
Michael
Reply to: