RE: Default icons
> -Original Message- > From: Roman Dobosz [mailto:gry...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:48 PM > To: wmaker-...@lists.windowmaker.info > Subject: Re: Default icons > > Please, do not remove ability to change the icon for particular program! > Thanks to this feature users have possibility to set their icon of choice > without using external programs like xseticon[1]. Just to avoid any confusion, I am not suggesting changing any of the current icon-related behavior. I am only suggesting changing/removing the default icons defined in WMWindowAttributes. Many of these icons are for legacy applications no longer in use in a modern system. Also, many of these icons aren't even included with Window Maker in the first place. Doug -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
Re: Default icons
I ought to comment on this: 1) Legacy icons carry the sense of tradition, are long-known and might be referred from somewhere (else). On the other hand, gain from removing those would be nonexistent. Please keep. 2) WindowMaker is not (yet) so great in getting icons from applications (recent VirtualBox comes to mind). But even if it was, folks just might want to set their own icons for something! E.g., libreoffice vs. openoffice appicon set. I think any other WM allows for that. Also, removing the option from WMAttributes would "strand" folks working *without* either dock or clip (e.g., I do, for 10+ years) Please keep. 3) Few words on appicon functionality in general. Anything different from 64x64 auto-resizes not so well, and there's no provision for auto-selection of subdirs in meta-dirs. I have both gnome/48x48 and hicolor/48x48 added to my dirlist. (BTW, why no 64x64 subdirs there? Because icons from those often are "bigger in the picture part", and mix badly with, e.g., icons provided by applications themselves, which are closer to 48x48.) Why is the operator forced to look for icons only in the fixed set of dirs at all? Configs keep full paths. Restarting the session throws out icons set in WMAttributes. Last I looked, icons can only exist in square blocks, with no transparency? (Might be remedied almost ideally by setting repetitive background raster having width divisible by 64) -Yury On 10/19/2013 03:55 AM, Torrance, Douglas wrote: I noticed a few things while looking at the default WMWindowAttributes. * Many of the icons don't ship with Window Maker (e.g., ColorGNU.xpm for Emacs), but instead are in the WindowMaker-extra tarball. (Similarly, the Debian default WMWindowAttributes, which has mostly different icons, references icons in the wmaker-data package, which is only suggested but not required by the main wmaker package.) * Many of the icons are for rarely used software in a modern system (e.g., Netscape). * The current version of Window Maker does a mostly great job of getting icons from applications, and so declaring icons in WMWindowAttributes seems unnecessary outside of things like the dock, clip, and drawers (unless the user wants an icon theme). At this point, leaving things the way they are seems to only be of interest for historic purposes. I'd like to make some changes, but I wanted to see how people felt about the issue before I started submitted patches. Thanks! Doug -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
Re: Default icons
On 10/19/2013 07:46 AM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > I think it's a good idea to sanitize this. > > There is more than one way to proceed, eg include the missing icons > or remove their appearance in the config files, remove/keep the Netscape > icon (I'd favor removing it) etc. > > But my first reaction is "go for it". > > I just submitted a patch. Let me know if it's too drastic! Doug -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
Re: Default icons
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Carlos R. Mafra escribió: > On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 at 0:55:26 +, Torrance, Douglas wrote: > > I noticed a few things while looking at the default WMWindowAttributes. > > > > * Many of the icons don't ship with Window Maker (e.g., ColorGNU.xpm for > > Emacs), but instead are in the WindowMaker-extra tarball. (Similarly, > > the Debian default WMWindowAttributes, which has mostly different icons, > > references icons in the wmaker-data package, which is only suggested but > > not required by the main wmaker package.) > > > > * Many of the icons are for rarely used software in a modern system > > (e.g., Netscape). > > > > * The current version of Window Maker does a mostly great job of getting > > icons from applications, and so declaring icons in WMWindowAttributes > > seems unnecessary outside of things like the dock, clip, and drawers > > (unless the user wants an icon theme). > > > > At this point, leaving things the way they are seems to only be of > > interest for historic purposes. I'd like to make some changes, but I > > wanted to see how people felt about the issue before I started submitted > > patches. > > I think it's a good idea to sanitize this. > > There is more than one way to proceed, eg include the missing icons > or remove their appearance in the config files, remove/keep the Netscape > icon (I'd favor removing it) etc. > > But my first reaction is "go for it". +1 Changes are welcome. -- ||// //\\// Rodolfo "kix" Garcia ||\\// //\\ http://www.kix.es/ -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
Re: Default icons
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 at 0:55:26 +, Torrance, Douglas wrote: > I noticed a few things while looking at the default WMWindowAttributes. > > * Many of the icons don't ship with Window Maker (e.g., ColorGNU.xpm for > Emacs), but instead are in the WindowMaker-extra tarball. (Similarly, > the Debian default WMWindowAttributes, which has mostly different icons, > references icons in the wmaker-data package, which is only suggested but > not required by the main wmaker package.) > > * Many of the icons are for rarely used software in a modern system > (e.g., Netscape). > > * The current version of Window Maker does a mostly great job of getting > icons from applications, and so declaring icons in WMWindowAttributes > seems unnecessary outside of things like the dock, clip, and drawers > (unless the user wants an icon theme). > > At this point, leaving things the way they are seems to only be of > interest for historic purposes. I'd like to make some changes, but I > wanted to see how people felt about the issue before I started submitted > patches. I think it's a good idea to sanitize this. There is more than one way to proceed, eg include the missing icons or remove their appearance in the config files, remove/keep the Netscape icon (I'd favor removing it) etc. But my first reaction is "go for it". -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
Re: Default icons
Hi! On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Torrance, Douglas escribió: > I noticed a few things while looking at the default WMWindowAttributes. > > * Many of the icons don't ship with Window Maker (e.g., ColorGNU.xpm for > Emacs), but instead are in the WindowMaker-extra tarball. (Similarly, > the Debian default WMWindowAttributes, which has mostly different icons, > references icons in the wmaker-data package, which is only suggested but > not required by the main wmaker package.) Yes, IMO this is a problem. The related icons, should be included in the wmaker package (tarball). If the icon doesn't exist, it shouldn't be used in configuration files. The wmaker-data and wmaker packages are based on upstream, and then they have the same problems (or more, because I am the maintainer ;-) ) > * Many of the icons are for rarely used software in a modern system > (e.g., Netscape). Yes, but, IMO, we should include "legacy" icons. Probably we shouldn't use them in the config files, but include them in the tarball. Icons are small pictures. If someone wants use old feeling, the icons are included. > * The current version of Window Maker does a mostly great job of getting > icons from applications, and so declaring icons in WMWindowAttributes > seems unnecessary outside of things like the dock, clip, and drawers > (unless the user wants an icon theme). > > At this point, leaving things the way they are seems to only be of > interest for historic purposes. I'd like to make some changes, but I > wanted to see how people felt about the issue before I started submitted > patches. moreinfo++ Thanks kix > Thanks! > Doug > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org. -- ||// //\\// Rodolfo "kix" Garcia ||\\// //\\ http://www.kix.es/ -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
