Where should icons for desktop files be stored? Some packages use
/usr/share/pixmaps. Others use subdirectories under
/usr/share/pixmaps (some directories are unowned too). Some use a
private directory under /usr/share/<name>. Still others use
/usr/share/icons/.

Icon=/usr/share/sane/xsane/xsane-logo.xpm

>rpm -ql gnome-utils | grep /usr/share/pixmaps
/usr/share/pixmaps/gsearchtool/thumbnail_frame.png
file /usr/share/pixmaps/gsearchtool is not owned by any package

How should the icon be referred to in a desktop file? Some use
absolute paths, others no path at all. desktop-file-install complains
if there is a relative or partial path.

Icon=/usr/share/system-config-lvm/pixmaps/lv_icon.png
Icon=/usr/share/system-config-selinux/system-config-selinux.png

Some desktop file icons don't use an extention, but some do:

Icon=accessories-calculator
Icon=accessories-dictionary.png

It looks like the majority of the desktop files on my F9 system are
using the form without an extension.

All of this is confusing. For new applications, what should they use?
What are the semantics for the various syntaxes that are used? What
should be done for upstream packages that have icons? What if they
are in xpm format rather than png?

Thanks.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU> writes:
> Where should icons for desktop files be stored? Some packages use
> /usr/share/pixmaps. Others use subdirectories under
> /usr/share/pixmaps (some directories are unowned too). Some use a
> private directory under /usr/share/<name>. Still others use
> /usr/share/icons/.

Red Hat's rpmdiff tool has recently started to complain if desktop
icon files are not underneath /usr/share/pixmaps/, so apparently there
is policy to that effect somewhere. Unowned directories are certainly
verboten too. I have no idea if there's any existing policy about your
other questions.

One point: I'd suggest that we *not* require conversion of upstream
icon files to a uniform file format, so long as what upstream supplies
will work (ie, please no "thou shalt convert xpm to png" in the
guidelines). Doing that would require BuildRequire'ing some image
conversion package or other, which seems like a pretty heavyweight
build dependency for hardly any real gain.

regards, tom lane

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 22:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> One point: I'd suggest that we *not* require conversion of upstream
> icon files to a uniform file format, so long as what upstream supplies
> will work (ie, please no "thou shalt convert xpm to png" in the
> guidelines).

I'm pretty sure that png and xpm are supported at a minimum, possibly
other formats as well.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging