On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:59:43PM -0800, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> I formally object to this proposal on the grounds that we have not heard
> from Branden yet, seeing as he is our resident X guru. Once Branden is
> raised one way or another on this subject, I will retract this objection.
I appreciate the deference, but I don't imagine that my inputs means all
THAT much. :)
I'm still undecided as to whether we should have
/usr/share/icons
or
/usr/share/bitmaps
as well as
/usr/share/pixmaps
OTOH, the former may well turn out to be fine. Why?
* almost all image files identify their type by extension (.xbm, .xpm, .png)
* I don't recall, but the XPM spec may be a proper superset of the XBM spec
(I know this is true functionally, but not if it is true syntactically)
* XFree86 4.0 will include an xpm library. The days of a monochrome-only
image file format "officially" supported by the X Window System are fast
drawing to a close.
I'm not averse to giving /usr/share/icons a shot and then seeing what
breaks.
BTW, to rebut the argument about a 1024x768 .xpm, I rebut that
/usr/share/icons is actually a superior solution in that case --
If you don't intend for it to be used as an icon, don't put it there.
Meanwhile, /usr/{something}/pixmaps could reasonably be interpreted as a
respository for all sorts of .xpm's, regardless of their purpose.
--
G. Branden Robinson | I must despise the world which does not
Debian GNU/Linux | know that music is a higher revelation
branden@ecn.purdue.edu | than all wisdom and philosophy.
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Ludwig van Beethoven
Attachment:
pgpKapPlCL4Q7.pgp
Description: PGP signature