[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: packaging: new spec filed idea

2008/1/18, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta gmail com>:
On Jan 18, 2008 7:20 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com> wrote:
> I think updating the hicolor-icon-theme package every time we add a new app to
> Fedora, or any time such an app changes its icon, is somewhere beyond impractical.

I'm not sure I understand the value of icons when searching for
applications that you haven't already installed.  But perhaps there is
value in using icons for updates. My reasoning is, most people should
have icon awareness for applications they use a lot.

So is there a compromise here.   Would it be worth embedding an icon
name into repodata for a package, and if they icon exists on the
system then the gui tools will use the icon in reference to a package
update?  But I don't know how you would drive that information into
the repodata  Is that something packagedb would have to do?  For
applications not already on the system, an icon representing the comps
group or rpm group for which the package belongs is perhaps pulled
from the hi-color set on system and displayed instead?

But the underlying question that I cannot answer is if there is a real
benefit to exposing icons at all.  I'm not sure there is. And even if
there is, I'm not sure its worth the complexity of implementing it.


fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com

Listen, PackageKit displays unuseful icons in his main package browsing component.
Replacing them with appropriate icons from icon theme would be some improvement.

Everybody knows gimp, so searching for gimp would be faster and easier if people would see gimp's icons only for gimp (not for gimp-libs etc).

It would make PK look like gnome-app-install in Ubuntu (which I personally didn't liked), but it's just usability improvement.

Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]