Icon-mime type associations

Alexander Larsson alexl at redhat.com
Wed Sep 29 17:38:53 EEST 2004

On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 14:54 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:15:25AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:38:25 +0100, Thomas Leonard
> > <tal00r at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > This is the key decision to make. (2) is simpler for packaging, since
> > > each app just drops its icon in a unique folder, although we'd have to
> > > have so rules so that looking up the icon always got the same icon for
> > > any particular set up (eg, sort the hicolor/* directories
> > > alphabetically).
> > 
> > Actually, this isn't necessarily true.  It's possible to get package
> > conflicts based on two packages trying to install the same file.
> No, because they'd install to sub-directories named after the package
> providing them (hicolor/gimp/mime-image:png.png vs
> hicolor/eog/mime-image:png.png).
> Do we have this problem with other systems which require installing files
> into hicolor?

This is problematic, because you have to then get the new subdirectories
into the index.theme file. And the icon names will conflict in the theme
anyway, because the subdir doesn't affect the way icon theme lookup is

Furthermore, adding lots of new directories to a theme would further
slow down the already terrible startup cost of icon themeing since it
means we have to look in even more directories, which are on different
cylinder groups, and thus causing major seek times.

 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl at redhat.com    alla at lysator.liu.se 
He's a fiendish Amish jungle king on the hunt for the last specimen of a great 
and near-mythical creature. She's a mentally unstable extravagent barmaid who 
inherited a spooky stately manor from her late maiden aunt. They fight crime! 

More information about the xdg mailing list