Hi, 2008/8/6 Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...] >> IMO $GISBASE/docs/html/icons seems very a strange place to put them, >> while $GISBASE/etc/icons seems very natural. Their primary reason for >> existence is for the GUI program, the docs are reactionary to that.. >> >> note that some packagers (Debian...) will, for large softwares, split >> the docs from the main program package into a new -docs package. this >> is for a couple reasons- one is that some people (eg embedded, old >> hardware) want to save the disk space by not installing unneeded docs; >> another is to avoid redundancy on the package download servers by >> pushing as much platform-neutral data into a single "-any" package and >> then have a series of smaller -i386, -arm, -mips, etc. binary >> packages. Storing 11 copies of the same docs adds up when you support >> 11 hardware platforms. >> >> The icons are platform neutral so not a problem for the server-space >> reason, but very much a problem for the user wants "core only" reason. > > IOW, the icons should really be installed into both docs/html/icons > (for the documentation) and etc/icons (for the GUI itself). the reasons you have mentioned make senses to me. I will fix silk icons accordingly. [...] BTW, maybe also icons and images from lib/init/ could be moved to the new place. gintro.gif -> gui/images ($GISDBASE/etc/gui/images) *.ico -> gui/icons ($GISDBASE/gui/icons) original GRASS icons - gui/icons/grass ($GISDBASE/gui/icons/grass) Silk icons - gui/icons/silk ($GISDBASE/gui/icons/silk) Martin -- Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa * _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
