Bug#27869: PROPOSED] Icon location policy
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
> > This covers the locations of icons.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Rationale
> >
> > There currently is no policy on where icons should end up; (the only
> > thing approaching policy is the documentation that comes with the menu
> > package - no, the FHS doesn't specify this even though it should) as a
> > result, xpm icons can end up almost anywhere. This makes it difficult
> > to write icon paths that do what users expect; that is, to configure
> > our respective window managers so that all the proper icons are found.
>
> Problem with that is xpms with the same names belonging to different
> packages and having different images inside them.
> [2 <application/pgp-signature>]
Did you read the rest of the proposal? Packages which have icons
(which may not just be xpm files) that are intended for their own use
only (and therefore, are not intended to be found by window managers)
will put them in package-specific directories, and may happily use
generic-sounding names. Packages with icons that are intended to be
found by window managers must use non-generic names.
I'm not trying to have an icon path that finds every possible xpm on
the system. I'm trying to make it so that icons which are intended to
be used by window managers are findable. I don't expect, for example,
to write icon paths that find the various xbm files xemacs uses to
determine what its buttons look like. However, I expect xemacs to put
icons like the gnu head or kitchen sink (which are intended to be used
for an iconified xemacs) into a common directory and to use names that
are package specific when doing so.
Reply to: