Re: The current policy on xpm/xbm icons
Daniel, for starters, this should probably be raised as a bug against
debian-policy, just to make sure taht we don't forget about it. We
are underway in debian-policy on finding a new way to maintain policy.
Right now, there basically *is* no policy editor. Submitting a bug
will make sure that someone at least looks at this problem. Assuming
it is a policy problem, an assumption with which I am not completely
comfortable.
Daniel Martin at cush <dtm12@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes:
> So, I guess I'm asking eventually for a policy decision. I don't
> really have an opinion on _which_ directory names are decided on for
> icons so long as:
>
> 1) there is a central place for icons that packageA wishes to make
> available to all other packages. (for example, the
> xemacs20-support package might place xemacs.xpm in this location)
> - the docs to the menu package suggest
> /usr/X11R6/include/X11/{bitmaps,pixmaps} for this, but other
> possibilities exist (some packages are already using
> /usr/share/icons for this purpose)
Isn't this specified in FHS?
> 2) There's a defined policy on how a package should choose where to
> put icons that it uses internally (for example, the .xpm files that
> come in xemacs20-support that are used by w3 fall into this
> category). This need not be anything too definite; even a policy
> that says 'somewhere under /usr/share/{package}' is better than a
> policy that says ''.
> It would probably be a good idea if window managers had stricter
> guidelines about where to put icons than other packages, as wm's
> tend to all use their icons for the same purpose.
Why is this really necessary? This almost seems like too much detail
for the Policy document.
> 3) Window managers are given a directory into which they must not
> put any icons but which they must search for icons - this should be
> something under /usr/local or /usr/share/local or similar. The
> idea, of course, is to allow the local sysadmin to add her own
> icons to be used by all installed window managers.
A very nice idea.
> 4) This decision about icons becomes actual policy, rather than just a
> vague consensus followed by packagers who hear about it through the
> grapevine.
Yes that would be nice, though, while delegating out to FHS/FSSTD what
is their to determine, and not getting too nit picky.
In many situations such as this, i.e., SGML sub-policy, menu
sub-policy, emacs-common sub-policy, a motivated party builds
consensus and formulates a sub-policy. I think this issue is suitable
for such an effort.
--
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: