Re: Bug Terrorism and 'move xpm' - statement
On Tue, Mar 17, 1998 at 09:51:43AM +0100, Michael Bramer wrote:
> >You see, fvwm is on the right place, but gnome, tkdesk, afterstep and so on
> >not. I think we should change that.
>
> I suggest you submit wishlist level bugs against these packages which
> don't put .xbm and .xpms under /usr/X11R6/include/X11.
Yes, submitting bugs against those packages would have been a good idea? Did
you get round to doing so among all the bogus ones?
> There is no exact policy in debian-policy and in the fsstnd. I think for
> icons (and so) the right place is /usr/X11R6/include/pixmaps. (or a
> new directory /usr/X11R6/icons/ ?)
I can't think of any good reason for them being in /usr/X11R6/include (yes,
I know, they can be #included, but how many programs #include pixmaps from
the system pixmaps directory? None that I've seen)
> Then the user should not search for icons and all programs with icons
> (like windowmanager) search in the same directory.
Yes, I agree.
> We should discuss this policy a second time. Is this idea so bad?
> Packages with a lot of icons and backgrounds and so on, should package
> two packages: package-bin package-icons. (like gnome). Then all
> user can install the icons without the program.
Yes.
But are you really so stupid you can't distinguish between generally useful
pixmaps such as those that come with window managers and file managers and
ones that are used within a particular program?
We have a few standard directories for executables. Should we put all the
scripts and things that are currently under /usr/lib/$(package) into them?
Of course we don't. They're not of any use to the user and would cause
namespace pollution. Why do you think pixmaps are any different?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: