On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 09:26:39PM -0800, ferret@phonewave.net wrote: > /usr/share/images/icons (small images meant as window decoration, > desktop-style icons, or button bitmaps) > > /usr/share/images/backgrounds (possibly larger images meant as window or > desktop background, etc.) > > Probably not the best thing in the world, and people would be free to put > things in /usr/share/images, but the idea's there. I feel this would lead to a slippery slope of incoherency. One really big advantage to /usr/share/image (it should perhaps be singular given existing practice of bin, lib, doc, as opposed to bins, libs, docs) is that it's SIMPLE to determine what should go in there and SIMPLE to enforce proper usage of the directory. Generate a catalog of image file formats and write a lintian check for them. As Debian Policy grows I think it is important to have policies for which compliance can be automated. Also, what can be automatically checked for might also be able to be automated at package build time, say with a dh_* command. I don't think either of those are true in any very strict sense for a distinction between icons and backgrounds. I think it's sounder to stick to filesystem structure mandates based on file formats than intended use. -- G. Branden Robinson | Damnit, we're all going to die; let's Debian GNU/Linux | die doing something *useful*! branden@ecn.purdue.edu | -- Hal Clement, on comments that space cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | exploration is dangerous
Attachment:
pgpWvXmcwDS6j.pgp
Description: PGP signature