oxygen icons moved

Sebastian Kügler sebas at kde.org
Sat Mar 28 00:49:32 CET 2009

On Friday 27 March 2009 10:05:11 Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> On Thursday 26 March 2009 16:00:22 Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 March 2009, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> > > I talked with Casper (over irc) on what would be needed for releasing
> > > oxygen icons. Unless I missed something, it's tag, export and upload
> > > (mail kde- packager ?), and he seemed ready to do it himself.
> >
> > I'm willing to do the packaging myself, but I need the information where
> > to find the oxygen icons for KDE 4.2.2. You're not really telling me that
> > I should use the trunk version of oxygen icons, right?
> >
> > What is the version number of the oxygen icons? where can I find the
> > version that matches KDE 4.2 branch?
> Ok, I didn't talk with Casper or Nuno here, so take my word with a grain of
> salt here, but... why not?
> It's icons, we shouldn't have any regressions, and we have decided to split
> the release exactly to provide the most fresh icons possible.
> But then, I'm not sure if we want to break packaging scripts in a minor
> release.

I think removing the icons from branch and shipping them from kdesupport is a 
bad idea. With this kind of structural changes to a stable branch, we're 
making it harder for packagers to ship our updates and bugfixes, they're now 
either stuck with putting the icons back into the old location and ship this, 
or offer the icons as separate package, which creates more work for these poor 

Shipping Oxygen separately might be interesting for third party applications 
to use the icons, the names are standardized and they don't depend on neither 
KDE nor Qt (in fact they depend on being rendered with Inkscape ;)).

We need to consider that Oxygen is part of a stable platform. Even if we fix 
the apps that we ship together with Oxygen, that still means that we might 
screw some third party apps that suddenly loose icons in a x.y.z bugfix and 
translation update.
It's fine to update the Oxygen icons also in a stable cycle, the large 
majority of the updates to Oxygen is probably a 100% safe to backport.

For trunk, we can make these changes, but we need to consider the above points 
just as well. Backwards compatibility is just as important across major cycles 
(4.2 -> 4.3) releases.

I don't really see why putting Oxygen into kdesupport would mean that users 
get updates more often. I think it'll work the other way, branch is shipped 
every month, that means improvements to Oxygen can be shipped to the user 
usually in less than four weeks. By putting in them kdesupport (which is less 
visible and might not be updated by packagers along with a x.y.z release) the 
likely effect is that Oxygen is overall updated *less* often.

 http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org |  GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20090328/cd1fc21c/attachment.sig 

More information about the release-team mailing list