icons packages with frameworks

[Harald Sitter]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:12 AM, David Faure <faure at kde.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 October 2015 21:07:16 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> >> So maybe this wouldn't be such a bad move after all.
>> >
>> > Agreed, we have frameworks (e.g. KIconThemes) "depending" on breeze, so it
>> > makes some kind of sense to ship them together.
>> yeah, beside that, if you want to create some self-contained installers,
>> you need breeze (or some other full iconset), too.
>>
>> Therefore it is nice if one can grab the release matching the framework release one uses.
>
> I thought you wanted frameworks themselves to bundle icons rather
> than depend on a (large) icon theme.
> And I would agree -- I just don't know how this interacts with icon themes, i.e.
> is it a problem to have a single icon in the .qrc.
>
> But Martin's argument (apps should be able to depend on icons) is indeed
> a good reason to treat the default icon theme like a framework.
>
> I'm OK with releasing an icon theme with KF5, provided that it follows the
> KF5 rules/policies (buildsystem, versioning etc.) so that it doesn't have
> to be special-cased.

So, are we moving icons to frameworks then? Did anyone actually ask
the icon maintainers for input? :/
I am due to split breeze-icons from the breeze repo, so I could get
that into frameworks instead of plasma right away.
Equally oxygen-icons (currently part of plasma) could still be
relocated to frameworks easily as it hasn't seen a release. As pointed
out by Riddell on a different thread though, this bugger ought to have
a tarball name different from its repo name as it was part of
applications and thus has higher version numbers.

> (Notice I don't say oxygen or breeze, because I'm confused about that ;)

They are both "supported" and I think for both it would make sense to
be in frameworks.