Common icon themes

[Olaf Jan Schmidt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi!

As the perspectives between Antnonio and Alexander seems to be quite 
incompatible with each other at the moment, I hope I fill the gap with  a 
simple proposal.

How about keeping Antonio's original concept of storing CVS app icons in 
crystalsvg, but adding symlinks of all icons to hicolor, so Gnome and all 
other desktops find a "neutral" KDE icon for every app?

[Antonio Larrosa]
> About the proposals, I still think your proposal is not acceptable
> because on one hand, it breaks the icon theme concept (already
> explained)

If I understand the Gnome perspective correctly, a neutral icon for 
_every_ KDE application is required, if the namespaces of KDE and are to 
be seperated.

I see your problems with dublicating the icons, but there is a reason 
Alexander does is not satisfied with the proposal of adding crystalcvg to 
the gnome icon search tree.

> and also it puts double work on the artists and they (he)
> already told me they don't want to mantain two icon themes.

Symlinking all apps icons of crystalsvg to hicolor would do the job.

[Alexander Larsson]
> My hard requirements are:
>
> 1) For any icon name referenced in an application desktop file, Gnome
> and KDE has to be able to get *some* icon, if one exists. It doesn't
> matter exactly from what theme it is.
>
> 2) In the namespace of icons that gets exposed to both KDE and Gnome
> there are only application icons (and possibly later other kinds if we
> manage to standardize more usages of icon themes).
[...]
> Your proposal breaks requirement 2, and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Your points are definately valid.

> I don't think my requirements are unreasonable. In fact I think I've
> been very willing to compromise. I basically took whatever KDE was doing
> at the time, with minimal modifications, and made it into a standard
> document, I implemented support for it in Gnome, and I am even willing
> to change the name of the fallback theme to make it easier for KDE to
> get backwards compatibility for applications. I am not willing to break
> applications to get this accepted though.

There is very few time till KDE 3.1 is out, so maybe your will to 
compromise will have been in vain in the end because of too few time to 
discuss this out.

> So, it seems that we are unable to come to an agreement. I don't know
> what to do about this. I guess this means its up to users and
> distributions to fix this as best they can.

Well, they might still use my symlinking proposal to easily fix things.

Olaf.

- -- 
Meine Internetseiten:
http://www.GebetGenerator.de, http://www.amen-online.de

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj3YDr0ACgkQoLYC8AehV8fBkgCfZUQ/tyzYWK/aFe0/HTDmyfmE
dBEAoIxO6kGoQDdZRu+Dpg4iIEJFu8zt
=Jzpx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----