Re: More on icons for packages

[tim hall]

Thanks for forwarding this Free.

Last Wednesday 26 January 2005 07:56, Free Ekanayaka was like:
> |--==> Paul Brossier writes:
>
>   PB> On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 19:35 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
>   >>With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
>   >>longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer"
>   >>you have to hunt for your icon.
>
>   PB> well yes, here it does at least. also you can drag and drop it from
> your PB> menu.

>   PB> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 18:17 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
>   >>It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
>   >>icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
>   >>icon images.
>
>   PB> i don't think this is the right way to go. gnome and kde use the
>   PB> freedesktop standard and look for their icons in /usr/share/pixmaps.
>   PB> other applications using icons should seriously consider looking in
>   PB> there if they want to find any. clever ones could prune redundant
>   PB> icons according to their file format preference.

Personally I don't like /usr/share/icons - it's just another place to go 
looking for things. /usr/share/pixmaps contains xpms and pngs, other formats 
are surely unnecessary.

>   PB> you don't really want to use jpeg in a menu do you?

I'd go further than that and say one shouldn't.

>   >>Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established
>   >>or am I straigning at gnats?

I think it's an essential step.

I've been keeping an eye on the situation with regards to icons in menu 
entries for A/DeMuDi, unfortunately I've been distracted with setting up a 
system for my local arts centre and organising a little conference. *cough*

My intention is to contact all the maintainers of apps included in DeMuDi that 
don't appear to have icons and encourage them to include them - Most of this 
needs to happen upstream, otherwise the distro will become full of temporary 
hacks. Part of the hiatus has been caused by my realisation that Debian icon 
policy is rather unclear. I will resume efforts as soon as time allows.

Anyhow, I've posted my notes below. Suggestions welcome.

>   PB> another manual does not seem required. but mentionning the use
>   PB> of .desktop would be a worth addition to the menu manual.
>
>   PB> see http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/
>
>   PB> here is a minimal .desktop example:
>
>   PB> $ cat /usr/share/applications/freewheeling.desktop
>   PB> [Desktop Entry]
>   PB> Name=FreeWheeling
>   PB> Comment=live looping instrument
>   PB> Exec=fweelin
>   PB> Terminal=0
>   PB> Icon=freewheeling.xpm
>   PB> Type=Application
>   PB> Categories=Application;AudioVideo;
>
>   PB> .desktop go in /usr/share/applications and icons in
> /usr/share/pixmaps PB> (or full path). both png and xpm are ok.
>
>   PB> there could actually be some lintian/linda rules that checks if both
>   PB> menu and .desktop entries are there and that the icons are installed
> at PB> the correct location.
>
> I do agree with all these observations. Let me add that issues related
> to the menu  systems are becoming even  more important now that Custom
> Debian Distributions are entering the scene.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Free

cheers,

tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk

My hunt for a solution to this particular issue has led me thus far:

This is an open posting that I'm intending to send to all maintainers of 
packages that don't appear to have icons. Please could you let me know if I 
have my facts right. ;-] Possibly this needs to go on one of the Debian 
wikis. [?]

=

"""
Many people have never been happy with the icons provided by debian.
There are not enough of them, they are inconsistent in style, and the
low resolution and limited colors make them look like escapees from
1989. Lots of users don't bother with them.

Debian needs a consistent policy on where icons go - the icon policy is still 
"something to be addressed" in future Policy weeklys; however, the
few policy weeklys published since then don't seem to address it at
all. 
"""

These guidelines are my attempt to address it from the perspective of 
AGNULA/DeMuDi - a CDD. They are based on Debian Policy with a view to 
incorporating freedesktop.org standards. I am only focussing on achieving 
coherence amongst multimedia applications here.



Please, make sure the icons you specify are always available on the system. 
So, if you want to have an icon with your menu entry, the preferred method is 
to supply the icon with that package. Also, to prevent the distribution of 
icons files to turn too much into a mess, please put all icon files in the 
directory /usr/share/pixmaps - It's all static shareable 
architecture-independent data.

The use of /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps/ for .XPMs seems to be deprecated, 
but some packages still use it. KDE keeps its icons (mostly .PNGs) in a 
sorted-by-theme tree based at /usr/

Re: More on icons for packages

[James A. Treacy]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:52:48AM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> I think the point is we don't want to be stuck we xpm till eternity.
> Especially because we have window/desktop managers that support better
> formats like png or svg for example and programs supplying them.

svg icons are already a reality and there is nothing in the
documentation on where they should be placed. Note that I am not
suggesting that other formats should be dropped, simply that policy
include information on their proper location, etc., so that people
using something modern, like gnome, will be able to use them.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Dale C. Scheetz]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:52:48 +0100
Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:18:39 -0500
> "Dale C. Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > Thus it might be even better to define a policy the following way:
> > > 
> > >1. Put all XPMs for the use in Debian-Menu into
> > > /usr/share/menu/pixmaps
> > >2. Put all PNGs (and others) into /usr/share/pixmaps if they are
> > >   intended for applications which follow freedesktop.org
> > >   specification
> > 
> > I don't really see a need for the split. All menu icons should be xpm
> > so any other icons are for some other purpose.
> 
> I think the point is we don't want to be stuck we xpm till eternity.
> Especially because we have window/desktop managers that support better
> formats like png or svg for example and programs supplying them.
> 
My point was that it doesn't matter that this location is reserved for menu 
icons. There is no reason not to put other icons there as well, since all menu 
icons are xpm there should be no confusion. There is nothing in the menu spec 
that says only menu icons can go in this location. (in any case icons other 
than xpm in /usr/share/pixmaps is already the case) When and if xpms are no 
longer used for menus there will still be a need for icons in some format and 
this has become the defacto location. (I realize that the very name pixmaps 
implies xpm but as an abreviation for pixel maps it could refer to any mapping 
of pixels, not just xpm...

My complaint was about the many and varied locations in which you might find an 
icon. Creating multiple locations one for this sort, another for a different 
sort is exactly the situation that now exists with some packages putting them 
in /usr/share/package-name/icons and all its variations, some in 
/usr/share/pixmaps and other locations I have yet to discover. I am assuming 
that the icons I find in /usr/share/icons are either gnome or KDE graphics 
elements. (my machines only have gnome icons here as I don't use KDE)

Well, this turned out longer than I expected ;-)

Luck,

Dwarf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Tim Dijkstra]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:18:39 -0500
"Dale C. Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Thus it might be even better to define a policy the following way:
> > 
> >1. Put all XPMs for the use in Debian-Menu into
> > /usr/share/menu/pixmaps
> >2. Put all PNGs (and others) into /usr/share/pixmaps if they are
> >   intended for applications which follow freedesktop.org
> >   specification
> 
> I don't really see a need for the split. All menu icons should be xpm
> so any other icons are for some other purpose.

I think the point is we don't want to be stuck we xpm till eternity.
Especially because we have window/desktop managers that support better
formats like png or svg for example and programs supplying them.

grts Tim


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
Thus it might be even better to define a policy the following way:
   1. Put all XPMs for the use in Debian-Menu into
/usr/share/menu/pixmaps
   2. Put all PNGs (and others) into /usr/share/pixmaps if they are
  intended for applications which follow freedesktop.org specification
I don't really see a need for the split. All menu icons should be xpm so any other icons are for some other purpose.
Well there could be one reason: If you browse this directory in the worst case 
you
see each icon twice (XPM and PNG) which might be really confusing for users.
   3. Put a symlink
 ln -s /usr/share/menu/pixmaps/.xpm /usr/share/pixmaps
  if there is no PNG or whatever icon for this application to support
  both Debian-Menu and freedesktop.org
These kinds of solutions lead to extra detail in package management and, of course see above ;-)
Sure.  If my argument above should be void then forget this item.  If my
idea (I'm really unsure whether it is good or not) is a real argument try
adding this functionality to dh_menu.
   4. File bug report or even create automagically via mogrify icons in
  /usr/share/menu/pixmaps/ if there are icons in /usr/share/pixmaps
  but the maintainer did not provide a XPM following the menu policy
  spcification.
What package would be responsible for this mogrification?
Damn, once there was the exact command line how to call this binary from
imagemagick package in /usr/share/doc/menu but I can not find it any more ...
Simplify, simplify, simplify ;-)
Sure.  I was just thinking about kind of arguments which might destroy
over simplification.  I would definitely go with you if you mean we need
a more simple setup.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Dale C. Scheetz]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:15:38 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
> > icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
> > icon images.
> Why not putting all icons (xpm, png, ...) into /usr/share/pixmaps and just
> use the XPMs for menu and the other for anything else?
> At least I think that we are bound to /usr/share/pixmaps at least to
> support fredesktop.org standards for the Gnome / KDE icons.  If the maintainer
> does not provide any PNG but has created an xpm it wold definitely not
> hurt in this location.  Perhaps a problem for the user would be if there
> would be two icons with a similar look (XPM and PNG).
> 
When I looked briefly at the freedesktop standard for Gnome and KDE icons I 
thought it specified /usr/share/icons and, sure enough there be icons here. 
There is a lot more stucture here to. /usr/share/icons/Default and others that 
I looked at have subdirectories ranging from 12x12 up to 192x192 but the 
contents seems to be specialized to gnome pieces-parts. (the more I look the 
more complicated it gets...)

> Thus it might be even better to define a policy the following way:
> 
>1. Put all XPMs for the use in Debian-Menu into
> /usr/share/menu/pixmaps
>2. Put all PNGs (and others) into /usr/share/pixmaps if they are
>   intended for applications which follow freedesktop.org specification

I don't really see a need for the split. All menu icons should be xpm so any 
other icons are for some other purpose.

>3. Put a symlink
>  ln -s /usr/share/menu/pixmaps/.xpm /usr/share/pixmaps
>   if there is no PNG or whatever icon for this application to support
>   both Debian-Menu and freedesktop.org

These kinds of solutions lead to extra detail in package management and, of 
course see above ;-)

>4. File bug report or even create automagically via mogrify icons in
>   /usr/share/menu/pixmaps/ if there are icons in /usr/share/pixmaps
>   but the maintainer did not provide a XPM following the menu policy
>   spcification.
> 
What package would be responsible for this mogrification?

> > Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established or
> > am I straigning at gnats?
> Would the skecth of a policy above make sense to you?
> 

Simplify, simplify, simplify ;-)

Luck,

Dwarf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Paul Brossier]

On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 09:41 -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: 
> The icon I would prefer to use on the desktop/panel is 114x154 pixels 
> and gives a smoother lookeing icon. I'll have to experiment with violating 
> the menu spec and seeing how it works...

i would say that could sound too large for an icon. png icons
in /usr/share/pixmaps are 48x48. the other images are splash screen or
alike and should go to /usr/share/.

> > another manual does not seem required. but mentionning the use
> > of .desktop would be a worth addition to the menu manual.
> > 
> Except that it has little to do with the menu specification. 

oh yeah! it makes the freedesktop compliant menus. have a look
in /usr/share/applications.

> For those like me who went searching for "icon" in the docs it would 
> be nice to have a section with that title that points at the menu spec 
> and the desktop spec and any other useful help with icon managment.

agreed. 9.3 in the policy could contains the word icon. and the menu
manual could advise to have a look at the freedesktop specifications.

> I'm still left with a question: How do I, as a package maintainer,
> provide these .desktop files so the user either automatically or by
> some simple choice gets the icon on their desktop?

put it in the menu, drag and drop on the desktop works there too. there
is no entry to specify different icon sizes, so you could also craft one
more myapp.desktop linking to the bigger icon and tell your users where
to copy it from to install it.

but i would not like at all having a program that automatically adds
icons to my desktop. it's messy enough as it is :)

ciao, piem


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Dale Scheetz]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:20:34 +, Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 19:35 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> > With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
> > longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer"
> > you have to hunt for your icon.
> 
> well yes, here it does at least. you can also drag and drop it from your
> menu.

Yes, that works here too, but doesn't that use the icon displayed in
the menu entry? For Spider I conformed to the menu spec and made the
icon 32x32 pixels in xpm format. The icon I would prefer to use on the
desktop/panel is 114x154 pixels and gives a smoother lookeing icon.
I'll have to experiment with violating the menu spec and seeing how it
works...
> 
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 18:17 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> > It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
> > icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
> > icon images.
> 
> i don't think this is the right way to go. gnome and kde use the
> freedesktop standard and look for their icons in /usr/share/pixmaps.

I see your point. I was not aware of the other "specifications". One
single location for icons makes great sense.
> other applications using icons should seriously consider looking in
> there if they want to find any icon. clever ones could prune redundant
> icon according to their file format preference.
> 
> you don't really want to use jpeg in a menu do you?
> 
Naaah, I just included it for completeness, png is a much better format ;-)

> > Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established or
> > am I straigning at gnats?
> 
> another manual does not seem required. but mentionning the use
> of .desktop would be a worth addition to the menu manual.
> 
Except that it has little to do with the menu specification. For those
like me who went searching for "icon" in the docs it would be nice to
have a section with that title that points at the menu spec and the
desktop spec and any other useful help with icon managment.

> see http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/
>
This is very useful. Thank you!
 
BTW, DSL (Damn Small Linux, a Debian based live cd distro) uses its
own desktop icon format in a .lnk file in the .xdesktop directory for
that user.

I'm still left with a question: How do I, as a package maintainer,
provide these .desktop files so the user either automatically or by
some simple choice gets the icon on their desktop?

Waiting is,

Dwarf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Free Ekanayaka]

|--==> Paul Brossier writes:

  PB> On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 19:35 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
  >>With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
  >>longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer" 
  >>you have to hunt for your icon. 

  PB> well yes, here it does at least. also you can drag and drop it from your
  PB> menu.

  PB> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 18:17 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
  >>It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
  >>icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
  >>icon images.

  PB> i don't think this is the right way to go. gnome and kde use the
  PB> freedesktop standard and look for their icons in /usr/share/pixmaps.
  PB> other applications using icons should seriously consider looking in
  PB> there if they want to find any. clever ones could prune redundant
  PB> icons according to their file format preference.

  PB> you don't really want to use jpeg in a menu do you?

  >>Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established
  >>or am I straigning at gnats?

  PB> another manual does not seem required. but mentionning the use
  PB> of .desktop would be a worth addition to the menu manual.

  PB> see http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/

  PB> here is a minimal .desktop example:

  PB> $ cat /usr/share/applications/freewheeling.desktop
  PB> [Desktop Entry]
  PB> Name=FreeWheeling
  PB> Comment=live looping instrument
  PB> Exec=fweelin
  PB> Terminal=0
  PB> Icon=freewheeling.xpm
  PB> Type=Application
  PB> Categories=Application;AudioVideo;

  PB> .desktop go in /usr/share/applications and icons in /usr/share/pixmaps
  PB> (or full path). both png and xpm are ok.

  PB> there could actually be some lintian/linda rules that checks if both
  PB> menu and .desktop entries are there and that the icons are installed at
  PB> the correct location.

I do agree with all these observations. Let me add that issues related
to the menu  systems are becoming even  more important now that Custom
Debian Distributions are entering the scene.

Cheers,

Free


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
icon images.
Why not putting all icons (xpm, png, ...) into /usr/share/pixmaps and just
use the XPMs for menu and the other for anything else?
At least I think that we are bound to /usr/share/pixmaps at least to
support fredesktop.org standards for the Gnome / KDE icons.  If the maintainer
does not provide any PNG but has created an xpm it wold definitely not
hurt in this location.  Perhaps a problem for the user would be if there
would be two icons with a similar look (XPM and PNG).
Thus it might be even better to define a policy the following way:
  1. Put all XPMs for the use in Debian-Menu into
   /usr/share/menu/pixmaps
  2. Put all PNGs (and others) into /usr/share/pixmaps if they are
 intended for applications which follow freedesktop.org specification
  3. Put a symlink
ln -s /usr/share/menu/pixmaps/.xpm /usr/share/pixmaps
 if there is no PNG or whatever icon for this application to support
 both Debian-Menu and freedesktop.org
  4. File bug report or even create automagically via mogrify icons in
 /usr/share/menu/pixmaps/ if there are icons in /usr/share/pixmaps
 but the maintainer did not provide a XPM following the menu policy
 spcification.
Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established or
am I straigning at gnats?
Would the skecth of a policy above make sense to you?
Kind regards
  Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Paul Brossier]

On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 19:35 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
> longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer" 
> you have to hunt for your icon. 

well yes, here it does at least. also you can drag and drop it from your
menu.

On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 18:17 -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
> icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
> icon images.

i don't think this is the right way to go. gnome and kde use the
freedesktop standard and look for their icons in /usr/share/pixmaps.
other applications using icons should seriously consider looking in
there if they want to find any. clever ones could prune redundant
icons according to their file format preference.

you don't really want to use jpeg in a menu do you?

> Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established
> or am I straigning at gnats?

another manual does not seem required. but mentionning the use
of .desktop would be a worth addition to the menu manual.

see http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/

here is a minimal .desktop example:

$ cat /usr/share/applications/freewheeling.desktop
[Desktop Entry]
Name=FreeWheeling
Comment=live looping instrument
Exec=fweelin
Terminal=0
Icon=freewheeling.xpm
Type=Application
Categories=Application;AudioVideo;

.desktop go in /usr/share/applications and icons in /usr/share/pixmaps
(or full path). both png and xpm are ok.

there could actually be some lintian/linda rules that checks if both
menu and .desktop entries are there and that the icons are installed at
the correct location.

ciao, piem


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Dale C. Scheetz]

Thank you for documenting my tour of the documents ;-)

While it looks like my original posting was a complaint about how hard
it was to find anythin on icons, my larger point was that there is only
information on icons in the menu documentation and it is specific to the
menu system, but icons are used in other venues like on gnome panels and
DSL even puts them on the desktop.

When I looked a several packages to see how they did it the results were
variable. Some folks put icons in /usr/share/package-name/icons and some
even refer to them in their menu files (from what you said below these
would be bugs).

As a user I find it ... inconvenient to have to search many different
possibilities in order to find a suitable icon for a gnome panel. It
seems to me that it would be more consistant to declare that all icons
should go into /usr/share/pixmaps even though most of them are png
format and not xpm.

It might be better to reserve /usr/share/pixmaps specifically for menu
icons in xpm format and create /usr/share/icons for png gif and jpeg
icon images. BTW the Gimp puts icons, logo and splash-screen in
/usr/share/gimp/images but it also puts a wilber icon in
/usr/share/pixmaps (their logo is cute ;-)

The gnome panel scales the image provided to fit the panel, so there are
advantages to creating a more detailed icon that maintains that detail
when shrunk to fit.

Is it worth while trying to get some general icon policy established or
am I straigning at gnats?

Luck,

Dwarf

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:24:45 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:35:42 -0500, Dale C Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said: 
> 
> > This document is only indirectly referenced in the policy manual, so
> > it isn't clear how much force it has. (it could be taken as the
> > mearest suggestion by the menu package maintainer)
> 
>   The Debian technical policy, section 9.6 states:
> ==
>  All packages that provide applications that need not be passed
>  any special command line arguments for normal operation should
>  register a menu entry for those applications, so that users of
>  the `menu' package will automatically get menu entries in their
>  window managers, as well in shells like `pdmenu'.
> 
>  Menu entries should follow the current menu policy.
> 
>  The menu policy can be found in the `menu-policy' files in the
>  `debian-policy' package.  It is also available from the Debian
>  web mirrors at `/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/
>  (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/)'.
> 
>  Please also refer to the _Debian Menu System_ documentation that
>  comes with the `menu' package for information about how to
>  register your applications and web documents.
> ==
> 
>   So, not following the menu policy would be a "normal" bug.
> 
>   It should also be noted that the menu policy  is packaged in
>  the same package that the Debian Technical policy is, so one may
>  infer that policy certainly thinks that menu policy has some weight.
> 
>   manoj
> -- 
> Moe: What did you give your wife for Valentine's Day? Joe: The usual
> gift -- she ate my heart out.
> Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>  1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272
> D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:35:42 -0500, Dale C Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> This document is only indirectly referenced in the policy manual, so
> it isn't clear how much force it has. (it could be taken as the
> mearest suggestion by the menu package maintainer)

The Debian technical policy, section 9.6 states:
==
 All packages that provide applications that need not be passed any
 special command line arguments for normal operation should register a
 menu entry for those applications, so that users of the `menu' package
 will automatically get menu entries in their window managers, as well
 in shells like `pdmenu'.

 Menu entries should follow the current menu policy.

 The menu policy can be found in the `menu-policy' files in the
 `debian-policy' package.  It is also available from the Debian web
 mirrors at `/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/
 (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/)'.

 Please also refer to the _Debian Menu System_ documentation that comes
 with the `menu' package for information about how to register your
 applications and web documents.
==

So, not following the menu policy would be a "normal" bug.

It should also be noted that the menu policy  is packaged in
 the same package that the Debian Technical policy is, so one may
 infer that policy certainly thinks that menu policy has some weight.

manoj
-- 
Moe: What did you give your wife for Valentine's Day? Joe: The usual
gift -- she ate my heart out.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Dale C. Scheetz]

I understand your point about this document only applying to menus. My point 
was that this is the only documentation I can find on icons, and gnome has 
changed how it mounts programs on panels so I'm still running on empty as far 
as directions on proper behavior. Many of the icons that gnome has used in the 
past seem to reside in /usr/share/pixmaps so there seems to be some consensus 
on this location as a proper storage location.

I've been with Debian for a long time and it seems that consistancy is our most 
difficult product to impliment. Lintian is a great help in this maintenance 
but...

Thanks for the feedback. Any pointers to other docs would be useful...

Luck,

Dwarf

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:20:44 +0100
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 07:35:42PM -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> > Well, I finally found some documentation on icons in menu
> > specifications. What it says is pretty specific and goes against what I
> > found when I looked at actual packages.
> > 
> > 1. the documentation says all icons go into /usr/share/pixmaps and
> > 
> > 2. all menu icons should be 32x32 pixels and be in xpm format.
> 
> 3 points:
> 
> Your quote is an extract from the Debian menu manual
> 
> or 
> 
> 
> 1) this is only for icons used in menu file for the Debian menu
> systems. Icons used by window managers and files managers are a completly 
> different business.
> 
> 2) It says _at most_ 32x32 pixels. 
> 
> > But, when I looked at several packages, many put their icons in
> > /usr/share/package-name/icons/ and very few actually use 32x32 for their
> > size even when they are placed in /usr/share/pixmaps/.
> > 
> > This document is only indirectly referenced in the policy manual, so it
> > isn't clear how much force it has. (it could be taken as the mearest
> > suggestion by the menu package maintainer)
> > 
> > /usr/share/pixmaps has lots of png files and many images are larger than
> > 32x32.
> > 
> > Are these issues that should be resolved with bug reports?
> 
> At least, they are flagged as bugs by lintian:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to get as much menu related bugs as I can, but I don't get much
> support.
> 
> > With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
> > longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer" you
> > have to hunt for your icon. The default place to look is
> > /usr/share/pixmaps, so it would be user helpful to have all icons in
> > that location instead of requiring a hunt through all the other
> > possibilities when you don't find the icon you are looking for.
> > 
> > Personally I like larger than 32x32 icons for the panel because icons
> > are scaled to fit the panel so fairly large ones give much cleaner
> > detail when scaled to fit.
> 
> The menu manual is only relevant for icons part of the window-managers
> menu, not GNOME panel icons.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Imagine a large red swirl here. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on icons for packages

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 07:35:42PM -0500, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> Well, I finally found some documentation on icons in menu
> specifications. What it says is pretty specific and goes against what I
> found when I looked at actual packages.
> 
> 1. the documentation says all icons go into /usr/share/pixmaps and
> 
> 2. all menu icons should be 32x32 pixels and be in xpm format.

3 points:

Your quote is an extract from the Debian menu manual

or 


1) this is only for icons used in menu file for the Debian menu
systems. Icons used by window managers and files managers are a completly 
different business.

2) It says _at most_ 32x32 pixels. 

> But, when I looked at several packages, many put their icons in
> /usr/share/package-name/icons/ and very few actually use 32x32 for their
> size even when they are placed in /usr/share/pixmaps/.
> 
> This document is only indirectly referenced in the policy manual, so it
> isn't clear how much force it has. (it could be taken as the mearest
> suggestion by the menu package maintainer)
> 
> /usr/share/pixmaps has lots of png files and many images are larger than
> 32x32.
> 
> Are these issues that should be resolved with bug reports?

At least, they are flagged as bugs by lintian:



I try to get as much menu related bugs as I can, but I don't get much
support.

> With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
> longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer" you
> have to hunt for your icon. The default place to look is
> /usr/share/pixmaps, so it would be user helpful to have all icons in
> that location instead of requiring a hunt through all the other
> possibilities when you don't find the icon you are looking for.
> 
> Personally I like larger than 32x32 icons for the panel because icons
> are scaled to fit the panel so fairly large ones give much cleaner
> detail when scaled to fit.

The menu manual is only relevant for icons part of the window-managers
menu, not GNOME panel icons.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

More on icons for packages

[Dale C. Scheetz]

Well, I finally found some documentation on icons in menu
specifications. What it says is pretty specific and goes against what I
found when I looked at actual packages.

1. the documentation says all icons go into /usr/share/pixmaps and

2. all menu icons should be 32x32 pixels and be in xpm format.

But, when I looked at several packages, many put their icons in
/usr/share/package-name/icons/ and very few actually use 32x32 for their
size even when they are placed in /usr/share/pixmaps/.

This document is only indirectly referenced in the policy manual, so it
isn't clear how much force it has. (it could be taken as the mearest
suggestion by the menu package maintainer)

/usr/share/pixmaps has lots of png files and many images are larger than
32x32.

Are these issues that should be resolved with bug reports?

With regards to GNOME panel icons. The "add to panel" option now no
longer offers "launcher from menu" so now with the "custom launcer" you
have to hunt for your icon. The default place to look is
/usr/share/pixmaps, so it would be user helpful to have all icons in
that location instead of requiring a hunt through all the other
possibilities when you don't find the icon you are looking for.

Personally I like larger than 32x32 icons for the panel because icons
are scaled to fit the panel so fairly large ones give much cleaner
detail when scaled to fit.

In any case I would like to see this floating document become an actual
part of the policy manual. It contains the implimentation details that
someone with questions really needs to see up front, not tucked away in
a specific package document outside the Policy Manual.

Any ideas?

Waiting is,

Dwarf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]