Some Icon Theme Spec fixes
andrewski at fr.st
Thu Apr 7 14:14:46 EEST 2005
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:54 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 11:10 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > It seems to me that the same issue would have occurred when adding the
> > XDG_DATA_* stuff to the spec, as it means new directories, for
> > implementatins that didn't handle the Base Directory specification at
> > the time. I don't think the original GnomeIconTheme implementation
> > handled it, for example. I think it's worth it. The breakage isn't that
> > bad. It means you need to create a symlink to ~/.themes/Name/icons/ as
> > ~/.icons/Name. You would have to do similarly if you were still using an
> > old version of gnome that doesn't handle the XDG_DATA_* variables. This
> > change seems very worth it to me, to allow theme authors to provide one
> > single tarball for an entire desktop theme, in the future.
> No comments? Doesn't anyone have an opinion on whether we should break
> forwards compatibility like this? What do the implementers think? Will
> they implement this?
> Its not exactly the same with XDG_DATA_*, because those are only set
> manually by the user. No icon set ships installed in an special
> directory that only the XDG_DATA env vars points to. However, with this
> change the recommended place for icons is in a location where old apps
> won't pick it up.
Yes, but as Rodney pointed out, a simple symlink will take care of that,
so I say go for it. "Only with bold strokes will we slash the evil of
bad icon themes!" or something equally as dramatic and overblown.
More information about the xdg