[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Lenny proposal: may the g-i look be similar to the desktop look

2007/1/24, Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>:
On Monday 22 January 2007 18:42, André Luiz Rodrigues Ferreira wrote:
> - Idea 3
> Screenshot:

Even though I prefer 3 as well, I don't think it is an improvement over
our current theme. There is no unity between the banner and the rest of
the screen because blue and grey don't match that well. In the screenshot
it very much looks like the banner was just dumped on top of the actual
screen. The current combination of red and grey is much more natural.

I also still don't like the shadows under the icons.

Let me also make my position as D-I release manager very clear on this
- I quite like the theme we currently have; we've received quite a few
  nice comments about it and no real criticism
- D-I is already effectively frozen; this really should have been done
  before RC1
- as the (hopefully final) kernel has just been uploaded, time is running
- for me the main criterion for changing the theme is not the integration
  with the desktop themes, but whether it makes g-i look better (or at
  least not worse)
- changing the engine used for gtk is not an option
- I will only consider a change if we receive a _complete_ patch,
  including banner, icons and theme file, and screenshots of how things
  look in the installer (showing at least text input, selection list,
  progress bar, error screen and informational screen)

OK! I changed the rootskel-gtk package, adding the proposal #3, Clearlooks with blueish colors and Gnome Icons.
The source is here:

In next release, I believe the artwork will be chosen before... :)

Thanks ALL!

- given the limited time we have and the fact that D-I is already frozen,
  I'm not going decide on this based on popular vote, but purely on my
  own judgement (of course taking into account opinions from others in
  this thread


Andre Luiz Rodrigues Ferreira (si0ux) <andrelrf@gmail.com>
Orlandia - SP - Brazil

Reply to: