Re: RFS: gnome-icon-theme-faenza
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Julien Valroff <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Le vendredi 18 mars 2011 à 22:54:48 (+0100 CET), Adnan Hodzic a écrit :
>> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Adam Borowski <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > The icon for the icon theme itself is missing or invalid -- I get the Gnome
>> > logo instead of a "directory" icon.
> Still the same issue (this is in gnome-appearance-properties, in the
> icons tab).
Ah, now I see what's the issue is. Ok, in package I just re-uploaded I
added "preinst" and "postinst" which solves this problem.
In "preinst" I forced removal of previous installation, which in my
case worked and gave me the look of new icons. It was easier for me
this way, instead of my previous try with dpkg-divert
"postinst" takes cares of the "GNOME" logo problem.
> The debian/dirs file is useless and I'd remove comments in debian/rules.
> Your copyright file is yet to be improved to fulfill DEP5 requirements.
> Also, you state the icons are licensed under the GPL-3+ but the short name
> is GPL and I cannot find where you have found they could be distributed
> under a later version og the GPL. If you had this from upstream in an email,
> quote it in the copyright file.
Ok, I moved all back to GPL. Even if this represents a problem I could
get upstram to quote it under GPL3 as he seems as a very good
cooperator and is eager to see Faenza in Debian.
> I also wonder whether it wouldn't be better to split the various themes in 3
> different packages given the size of the unique package (13M). What do you
I agree with what Adam said on this one:
>On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Adam Borowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> For most other packages, it would be a good idea.
> For eye-candy for Gnome, we're talking about a 13M addition to
> multi-gigabyte system (minimal Gnome can be less, but if you have to
> trim, you'd install a lighter environment).
> Thus, I'd say splitting would just cause confusion for users who would have
> to make a decision what to happen at apt level. A choice at the preferences
> dialog level gets a hint (the directory icon) and is instantly visible, at
> apt you have just a name.
I like to keep my gnome on bare minimum as well (don't have totem,
evolution, epiphany, empathy ...) but having this package "dissected"
into 3 separate one could only cause confusion among the users, so I'd
rather keep it in this form. If it represents that much of a problem I
could repackage source to bz2 and thus save ~2mb but I really don't
think this is necessary in this case.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Julien Valroff <email@example.com> wrote:
> Le samedi 19 mars 2011 à 11:42:46 (+0100 CET), Adam Borowski a écrit :
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:30:08AM +0100, Julien Valroff wrote:
>> > I also wonder whether it wouldn't be better to split the various themes in 3
>> > different packages given the size of the unique package (13M).
>> For most other packages, it would be a good idea.
>> For eye-candy for Gnome, we're talking about a 13M addition to
>> multi-gigabyte system (minimal Gnome can be less, but if you have to
>> trim, you'd install a lighter environment).
> I use GNOME but still try and not waste my disk space for things I do not
> The average icon theme for GNOME has an uncompressed size of +/- 10M while
> these faenza themes are more than 60M.
> % aptitude show "~n gnome-icon-theme" | grep -e "^Package" -e "^Uncompressed Size"
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-suede
> Uncompressed Size: 2089 k
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-blankon
> Uncompressed Size: 3498 k
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-extras
> Uncompressed Size: 1053 k
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-gartoon
> Uncompressed Size: 9298 k
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-symbolic
> Uncompressed Size: 561 k
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-nuovo
> Uncompressed Size: 10.4 M
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-yasis
> Uncompressed Size: 10.9 M
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-dlg-neu
> Uncompressed Size: 16.7 M
> Package: gnome-icon-theme
> Uncompressed Size: 14.2 M
> Package: gnome-icon-theme-faenza
> Uncompressed Size: 63.6 M
>> Thus, I'd say splitting would just cause confusion for users who would have
>> to make a decision what to happen at apt level. A choice at the preferences
>> dialog level gets a hint (the directory icon) and is instantly visible, at
>> apt you have just a name.
> A meta package could help these users, eg. gnome-icon-themes-faenza while
> each theme has its own package (gnome-icon-theme-faenza,
> gnome-icon-theme-faenza-dark etc.)
> Of course, each package (short & long) description should make it clear to
> users what is contained in each package.
> That is however just a proposal, I do understand your point of view as well.
> .''`. Julien Valroff ~ <firstname.lastname@example.org> ~ <email@example.com>
> : :' : Debian Developer & Free software contributor
> `. `'` http://www.kirya.net/
> `- 4096R/ E1D8 5796 8214 4687 E416 948C 859F EF67 258E 26B1
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: 20110319114127.GA21004@kirya.net">http://lists.debian.org/20110319114127.GA21004@kirya.net