Re: Icon and pixmap location
> [Belatedly cc'd to all packages which this would affect which have
> pixmaps in /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps; I missed you out earlier
> due to a typo :(. Apologies if you get this message more than once.
> Please reply to -policy, where the discussion will take place prior to
> a proposal.]
> This message is about bitmaps and pixmaps which are intended to be
> "public", that is, for use by more than just one program or small
> group of programs. Thus it would include an icon to be used by a
> window manager to represent an iconified xterm, but not icons for a
> directory listing in Apache.
> I just uploaded a new version of fvwm which has PixmapPath and
> IconPath (for bitmaps) entries which match the current situation for
> public icons in potato. They are as follows (split for readability):
> PixmapPath /usr/local/share/icons:/usr/share/icons:/usr/share/pixmaps:\
> /usr/include/X11/pixmaps
> IconPath /usr/local/share/icons:/usr/share/icons:/usr/include/X11/bitmaps:\
> /usr/X11R6/include/bitmaps
> This is patently absurd: there is no need to have *three* locations of
> pixmaps and three for bitmaps on our systems, in addition to a
> location for locally installed icons. I want to standardise the
> location (it is not discussed by the FHS). Subsequent to various
> suggestions here and on the fhs-discuss list, I want to make two
> suggestions of which one should be implemented:
> (1) All pixmaps and bitmaps live in /usr/share/icons. End of story.
> *NO* pixmaps or bitmaps will live in /usr/X11R6/include.
> (2) Pixmaps are allowed to live in either /usr/share/icons or
> /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps (aka: /usr/include/X11/pixmaps).
> Bitmaps are similarly allowed to live in either /usr/share/icons
> or /usr/X11R6/include/X11/bitmaps (aka: /usr/include/X11/bitmaps).
> Either way, I want to do away with /usr/X11R6/include/bitmaps, which
> is simply wrong, and /usr/share/pixmaps, which is unnecessary.
> Please give your comments before I make a proposal.
> Thanks,
> Julian
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
> Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Unknown package: otherosfs
Dear Debian GNU/Linux user!
You've sent email to an invalid address in the `packages' virtual
domain for Debian GNU/Linux. The address is not valid because
there is no known package with the given name. If you think this
is an error please don't hesitate to contact the maintainer
postmaster@packages.debian.org.
This virtual domain provides an easy way for any user to contact
the maintainer of every single package. If you want to reach the
maintainer(s) of a package, say cfingerd, just send a mail to
<package name>@packages.debian.org - cfingerd@packages.debian.org
in our example.
If you want to retrieve information about the Debian GNU/Linux
project please send a mail to debian@debian.org which will result
in more comprehensive information.
Joey
--
Debian GNU/Linux _/ Martin Schulze
The free distribution for Linux _/ joey@debian.org
postmaster@packages.debian.org _/ joey@infodrom.north.de
Reply to: