Re: 256x256 px icons
On 2 August 2011 17:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 2 11:45, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > I guess we're getting close to the end result now. >> >> So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s) >> themselves? Are you >> >> 1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s), >> >> 2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as >> we have long done with cygwin.ico >> >> 3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package >> >> or some combination? I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and >> licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README ) > > I would stick to the standard terminal icon for mintty(*), except in the > case of the "Cygwin Terminal" desktop and start menu icons. Sounds good to me. > Both files will be installed into / just as today. I thought the desktop and start menu icons would be the same. (Setup.exe's icon might be different.) Andy
Re: 256x256 px icons
On Aug 2 11:45, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > I guess we're getting close to the end result now. > > So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s) > themselves? Are you > > 1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s), > > 2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as > we have long done with cygwin.ico > > 3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package > > or some combination? I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and > licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README ) I would stick to the standard terminal icon for mintty(*), except in the case of the "Cygwin Terminal" desktop and start menu icons. Both files will be installed into / just as today. They can (and maybe should) also become part of cygicon DLL. Corinna (*) Well, unless Andy wants to take over the terminal icon with the C in it, but that's entirely his own call. -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: 256x256 px icons
On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I guess we're getting close to the end result now. So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s) themselves? Are you 1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s), 2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as we have long done with cygwin.ico 3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package or some combination? I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README ) P.S. I've been quiet on the artistic aspects of this discussion 'cause, well, I'm a no-talent hack, and I figured ya'll could do all the bike-shedding without my $0.37 (adjusted for inflation). -- Chuck
Re: 256x256 px icons
On Aug 2 15:49, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 1 August 2011 21:05, Andy Koppe wrote: > > On 1 August 2011 09:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote: > >>> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote: > >>> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote: > >>> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing > >>> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16 > >>> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only. > >>> >> > >>> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the > >>> >> C apart from the background. The border needs some light grey which > >>> >> allows to recognize the C. > >>> > > >>> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the > >>> > saturation of the green outline. > >>> > > >>> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently > >>> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that > >>> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the > >>> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using > >>> > InkScape). > >>> > > >>> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the > >>> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the > >>> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar. > >>> > >>> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the > >>> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in > >>> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green > >>> outline around the "C". > >> > >> Thanks. But, hmm. The longer I play with it, the less I like the green > >> glow. It adds an eerie touch to the C > > > > Now what's wrong with that? Cygwin - mean and a bit eerie. ;) > > > >> and it still doesn't set the C > >> really apart on dark backgrounds. > > > > I disagree, looking at a desktop with a darkish picture and dark grey > > taskbar and window borders. > > > >> I think we should go with a grey outline. > > > > I did eventually work out how to turn the outline of fatbuttlarry's > > icon grey. See attachments. > > Having used both variants for a while, I agree that a grey outline > does look better. I tried your icons on my desktop and the standalone icon looks good. In the terminal icons the beveled C looks better than the fatbuttlarry C, cleaner, crisper. It's also easier to distinguish from the dark background, but that's probably just because you used a darker shade of grey for the frame. In the terminal window, a lighter grey really doesn't hurt. Generally it looks like your C's are a pixel or two smaller, except in the smallest sizes. Gimp shows that you're always leaving a transparent frame of at least one pixel. Any reason for that? I guess we're getting close to the end result now. The question is just, should we use fatbuttlarry's bubbly C, or Warrens beveled C? I like both. The beveled C exists in 256x256, too. I like the beveled C better in the terminal frame, but I like the bubbly C better standalone. Maybe we can just use both in this combination? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: 256x256 px icons
On 1 August 2011 21:05, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 1 August 2011 09:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing >>> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16 >>> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only. >>> >> >>> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the >>> >> C apart from the background. The border needs some light grey which >>> >> allows to recognize the C. >>> > >>> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the >>> > saturation of the green outline. >>> > >>> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently >>> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that >>> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the >>> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using >>> > InkScape). >>> > >>> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the >>> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the >>> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar. >>> >>> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the >>> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in >>> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green >>> outline around the "C". >> >> Thanks. But, hmm. The longer I play with it, the less I like the green >> glow. It adds an eerie touch to the C > > Now what's wrong with that? Cygwin - mean and a bit eerie. ;) > >> and it still doesn't set the C >> really apart on dark backgrounds. > > I disagree, looking at a desktop with a darkish picture and dark grey > taskbar and window borders. > >> I think we should go with a grey outline. > > I did eventually work out how to turn the outline of fatbuttlarry's > icon grey. See attachments. Having used both variants for a while, I agree that a grey outline does look better. Andy
Re: [RFU] ppl-0.11.2-1
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:14 +1000, David Billinghurst wrote: > On 2/08/2011 5:10 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:36 +1000, David.Billinghurst wrote: > >> ppl-0.11.2-1 is available for upload. This is a new upstream release > >> built against gmp-4.3.2-1 > >> > >> It is backward compatible with ppl-0.10.2-1. > > > > That's not possible. Comparing the import libraries shows ABIs were > > removed/renamed between 0.10.2 and 0.11.2. Please rebuild ppl with the > > upstream ABI numbers; libppl will need to be named libppl9 now, with > > dependencies adjusted accordingly. > > > > > > Yaakov > > OK. No problem. > > It was compatible enough to run cloog and gcc-4.3, but I didn't check > the import libraries. Sometimes upstreams don't change ABI versions when they should, but when they are changed there is usually a good reason. Note that mpfr will definitely change ABI versions (1->4), and you might as well take this opportunity to revert to mpc's upstream version as well. Thanks, Yaakov
Re: [RFU] ppl-0.11.2-1
On 2/08/2011 5:10 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:36 +1000, David.Billinghurst wrote: ppl-0.11.2-1 is available for upload. This is a new upstream release built against gmp-4.3.2-1 It is backward compatible with ppl-0.10.2-1. That's not possible. Comparing the import libraries shows ABIs were removed/renamed between 0.10.2 and 0.11.2. Please rebuild ppl with the upstream ABI numbers; libppl will need to be named libppl9 now, with dependencies adjusted accordingly. Yaakov OK. No problem. It was compatible enough to run cloog and gcc-4.3, but I didn't check the import libraries.
Re: [RFU] cloog-ppl-0.15.11-1
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:45 +1000, David.Billinghurst wrote: > cloog-ppl-0.15.11-1 is available for upload. It is a new upstream > release built against gmp-4.3.2-1 and ppl-0.11.2-1. It is backward > compatible with the previous release Per my last message, please hold off uploading this. Yaakov
Re: [RFU] ppl-0.11.2-1
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:36 +1000, David.Billinghurst wrote: > ppl-0.11.2-1 is available for upload. This is a new upstream release > built against gmp-4.3.2-1 > > It is backward compatible with ppl-0.10.2-1. That's not possible. Comparing the import libraries shows ABIs were removed/renamed between 0.10.2 and 0.11.2. Please rebuild ppl with the upstream ABI numbers; libppl will need to be named libppl9 now, with dependencies adjusted accordingly. Yaakov
