On 1 October 2014 17:15, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it only me, that is thinking, that all there rules to make things looks
prettier in Gnome Software or you package will get excluded if you dont
live up to the rules
It's probably not just you.
is a little hostile for
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
Designing an application for the lowest common denominator does not
give you a high-quality cohesive application that's easy to use and
nice on the eye. It gives you a miss-mash of ugly noise that's hard to
use. I
On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
because they don't live up to some visual quality guidelines.
There's actually a whole load of reasons why we'd blacklist
applications:
Am 02.10.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
because they don't live up to some visual quality guidelines.
There's actually a whole load of
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.10.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
because they don't live up to
Am 02.10.2014 um 16:50 schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.10.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a
On 2 October 2014 15:47, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
to make some distribution clown happy
If you read the link, if you ship an AppData file the 5 year rule
doesn't kick in. That's something useful that the packager *can* do to
the otherwise perfect desktop application.
Richard
Hi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
you misunderstood me
I don't think anyone misunderstood that you have trouble disagreeing
without also being insulting. You are pushing off people who might
otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective by constantly engaging in a
independent how
often quotes are stripped to lose context
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff: Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px
Datum: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:32:02 +0100
Von: Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com
Antwort an: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel
Hi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you people are that
hypersensitive about every single word in real life too
People wouldn't say this if it was the first time you wrote something like
this. Also since you asked, I am usually *far* more curt generally
Am 02.10.2014 um 18:04 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you people are that
hypersensitive about every single word in real life too
People wouldn't say this if it was the first time you wrote
something like this
which
Hi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
which would be in fact more a reason to start realize that
people are different in how they express things and not all
is that insulting meant as it could be taken
https://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Please read the above link
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't think anyone misunderstood that you have trouble disagreeing
without also being insulting. You are pushing off people who might
otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective by constantly engaging in a
discussion the way
On 30 September 2014 02:09, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 22:05 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
Who is using magnifying glasses to view icons?
Icons are displayed far larger in GNOME Shell than in other desktop
environments, and the difference between an SVG
On 09/29/2014 01:19 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Please put the actual validation into an external script,
brp-desktop-file-validate or whatever. That way its consistent with the
other similar things, easier to test-run outside rpmbuild and unlike
inlining, has room for future growth.
Thanks
On 10/01/2014 03:07 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
# If no desktop files are installed, return immediately
if ! ls -A $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/applications/ 2/dev/null; then
exit 0
fi
That tests whether the directory exists, not whether it contains
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 08:57 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
That might be a good reason, but it's not the one given at the start
of this proposal, that was that larger icons are needed for the
software centre (i.e. for applications to get included in the
installer) due to higher resolution displays.
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 08:19 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I think the software center and shell display icons at the same size,
so
it matters equally to both.
I would be smarter if I checked such facts BEFORE sending emails and not
immediately AFTER. The icons in Software are indeed smaller.
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
# If no desktop files are installed, return immediately
if ! ls -A $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/applications/ 2/dev/null; then
exit 0
fi
That tests whether the directory exists, not whether it contains
desktop files. If that's what you want, then
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2014 03:07 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
# If no desktop files are installed, return immediately
if ! ls -A $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/applications/ 2/dev/null; then
exit 0
fi
That tests
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com
wrote:
At the moment applications have to provide an icon = 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
On Monday 29 of September 2014 12:40:30 Richard Hughes wrote:
On 29 September 2014 12:23, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote:
Couldn’t we just stop this madness of bitmaps?
+10
SVGs are not a silver bullet.
Well, it's better than bitmaps.
You'd want a very different source SVG
file for an
On 09/26/2014 05:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 09/26/2014 02:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji
buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's
On 2014-09-26, 10:19 GMT, Richard Hughes wrote:
At the moment applications have to provide an icon = 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally,
On 29 September 2014 12:23, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote:
Couldn’t we just stop this madness of bitmaps?
SVGs are not a silver bullet. You'd want a very different source SVG
file for an icon that's designed to be displayed at 22x22, to an icon
designed to be displayed at 256x256. Plus,
Hi
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'd rather see this done in a way that it only executes when
desktop-file-utils is installed, which should already be a buildrequire for
all packages containing desktop files I think.
Agreed. I would also like to see this be part
On 29 September 2014 12:40, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2014 12:23, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote:
Couldn’t we just stop this madness of bitmaps?
SVGs are not a silver bullet. You'd want a very different source SVG
file for an icon that's designed to be
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 22:05 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
Who is using magnifying glasses to view icons?
Icons are displayed far larger in GNOME Shell than in other desktop
environments, and the difference between an SVG icon and a 256x256 icon
(the mandatory minimum size for GNOME apps, and I'm
At the moment applications have to provide an icon = 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally, 128x128/64x64@2 also) icon for
the shell and
Hello,
- Original Message -
At the moment applications have to provide an icon = 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
(And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
elements the same and only add detail, which is inconsistent with displaying
low-resolution icons in a smaller physical size, but what do I know…)
No
- Original Message -
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
(And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
elements the same and only add detail, which is inconsistent with
displaying low-resolution icons in a smaller physical
On 26 September 2014 12:36, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
This is $n-th gradual tightening of the rules
Right, I think that's the only way to transition from having no rules
of inclusion, to a large cohesive set of high quality applications.
Dropping 95% of applications in the software
- Original Message -
On 26 September 2014 12:36, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
This is $n-th gradual tightening of the rules
Right, I think that's the only way to transition from having no rules
of inclusion, to a large cohesive set of high quality applications.
Dropping
On 09/26/2014 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
At the moment applications have to provide an icon = 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally,
On 26 September 2014 13:12, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I'd say it's time to cut off apps with 32x32 icons. Padding 48x48
icons to 64x64 might still be OK though, especially since the number of
affected apps is quite large.
Right, this is probably the best course of action
On 09/26/2014 02:23 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
When to warn them? In rpmbuild? In the koji logs no human ever reads?
You can get this kind of warning now, if you BR: libappstream-glib and
then do a:
%check
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT appstream-util check-root
...but this requires the packager
On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji
buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's built
in koji.
If you know how to do that, that'd be awesome.
And same thing with
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
(And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
elements the same and only add detail, which is
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:56:47PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
(And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
elements
You can either sacrifice quality or size; padding a 32px icon to 128px
with a giant white border would keep the icon crisp and sharp, but
scaling
On 26 September 2014 13:57, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
Actually scaling icon by integer factor should not have noticable
impact on quality.
It really does, maybe not in an absolute way like you suggest, but in
a subjective way. When you're used to everything being crisp and
On 09/26/2014 02:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji
buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's built
in koji.
If you know how to do that,
drago01 wrote on 2014-09-26 13:46 (UCT+0200):
hidpi is about higher pixel destiny (i.e same as you get with
phones today). So my 3200x1600 (14 inch) laptop is effectively just a
1600x900 screen with twice as high pixel destiny. So eveything gets
render at twice the size to not be ridiculously
43 matches
Mail list logo
