Bug#591812: lintian test for menu icon type is out of date
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 09:41:09AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> clone 591812 -1
> retitle -1 menu: Please clarify supported icon types (§3.7)
> reassign -1 menu
> block 591812 by -1
> thanks
>
> Dear menu maintainers,
>
> We have been asked to not emit "menu-icon-not-in-xpm-format" tags (or
> downgrade the severity of the tag) for packages that ship png icons
> instead of xpm icons (see #591812).
> While the documentation of menu says that package should use .xpm
> icons[1], Bdale (CC'ed) reported that "png files actually seem to work
> file".
>
> Could you please clarify if (or when) png (etc.) icons are acceptable
> alternatives?
Dear Niels,
I answer every few years the same questions...
The icon field is part of an interface between packages and window managers.
This is an interoperability issue. The interface is as follow:
1) window managers that use the icon field must
- be able to display XPM icons.
- treat the value of icon as XPM file.
2) packages that provide the icon field must
- make sure that icon point to an XPM file.
- the icon may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although smaller
sizes are ok.
Note that window managers are not required to be able to display PNG image
and even to detect that icon does not point to an XPM file, they are not
required to be able to rescale icons, etc.
So relaxing the requirement break interoperability.
Of course, a new interface could be designed for window managers with extended
functionalities (e.g. pngicon) and every few years I offer interested people to
do it, but so far no luck.
Cheers,
Bill.
Reply to: