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

desktop-splash, was: Re: Splashy artwork



Am 05.03.2012 um 16:26 schrieb Paul Wise:

> Since splashy is not available in wheezy and is unlikely to be
> re-added at this stage, there is not much point in making themes for
> it.

Thanks. I deactivate the appropriate line in our Requirements page, if this is OK with everyone. 

Another thing I wonder about is our splash file, currently:

/usr/share/images/desktop-base/spacefun-splash.svg
( /splash/spacefun-splash.svg in the desktop-base source package.)

As far as I see it, the only program left that uses it, is XFCE4. It is configured to use it through the alternatives system and the setting in

/usr/share/desktop-base/profiles/xdg-config/xfce4/xfconf/xfce-perchannel-xml/xfce4-session.xml

Gnome 2 formerly did use it, so we still configure it here

/usr/share/gconf/defaults/15_desktop-base

and here

/var/lib/gconf/debian.defaults/%gconf-tree.xml

But as far as I could find out, Gnome 3 doesn't have a splashscreen anymore, so these settings seem to be obsolete in Wheezy.

So if XFCE4 really is the only program left that actually uses desktop-splash, we should at least change these files in desktop-base:

nightly-splash.png
nightly-splash.xcf.tar.bz2

The reason is that nightly splash shows the Gnome foot as main motive, which doesn't really fit for a XFCE4 splash screen. To solve this issue I have created these replacements (GPL 2, like the original by Robert Jähne).

http://lazybrowndog.net/debian/wheezy/nightly-splash.png
http://lazybrowndog.net/debian/wheezy/nightly-splash.xcf.tar.bz2

On the other hand we can ask ourselves if it is really necessary to ship splash screens for XFCE? It isn't activated by default, so users must activate it by hand in the XFCE4 menu "Applications Menu/Settings/Session and Startup". The preview there also still doesn't work correct (Obviously bug #482945 isn't fixed yet). Perhaps it is time to drop desktop-splash completely?

Hope this helps.
regards
Ulrich


Reply to: