Re: More on icons for packages
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 07:35:42PM -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> Well, I finally found some documentation on icons in menu
> specifications. What it says is pretty specific and goes against what I
> found when I looked at actual packages.
> 1. the documentation says all icons go into /usr/share/pixmaps and
> 2. all menu icons should be 32x32 pixels and be in xpm format.
Your quote is an extract from the Debian menu manual
1) this is only for icons used in menu file for the Debian menu
systems. Icons used by window managers and files managers are a completly
2) It says _at most_ 32x32 pixels.
> But, when I looked at several packages, many put their icons in
> /usr/share/package-name/icons/ and very few actually use 32x32 for their
> size even when they are placed in /usr/share/pixmaps/.
> This document is only indirectly referenced in the policy manual, so it
> isn't clear how much force it has. (it could be taken as the mearest
> suggestion by the menu package maintainer)
> /usr/share/pixmaps has lots of png files and many images are larger than
> Are these issues that should be resolved with bug reports?
At least, they are flagged as bugs by lintian:
I try to get as much menu related bugs as I can, but I don't get much
> With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
> longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer" you
> have to hunt for your icon. The default place to look is
> /usr/share/pixmaps, so it would be user helpful to have all icons in
> that location instead of requiring a hunt through all the other
> possibilities when you don't find the icon you are looking for.
> Personally I like larger than 32x32 icons for the panel because icons
> are scaled to fit the panel so fairly large ones give much cleaner
> detail when scaled to fit.
The menu manual is only relevant for icons part of the window-managers
menu, not GNOME panel icons.
Imagine a large red swirl here.