[Tango-artists] device icons for gnome 2.22

[David Zeuthen]

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:32 +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I hope you don't mind me cc:ing the tango-artists mailing list, as
> there's a good chance more artists are interested in working on
> this[1]. 

Oh, not a problem, good idea, thanks for doing this (I just subscribed).

> > Just curious; how are distros supposed to ship these icons then?
> 
> While I'm no packager, having Gadgetango[2] from gnome-icon-theme-extras
> svn module packaged as gnome-icon-theme-devices depending on
> gnome-icon-theme and installing to the same prefix as gnome-icon-theme
> sounds appropriate. 

OK. That's good to know. Thanks.

> > > I'm not so happy about adding icons to the gnome-icon-theme itself
> > > though, we've seen actually going the opposite direction. Cleaning it up
> > > so that it only covers the generic set defined in the naming spec, but
> > > is of high quality and comes in all required sizes. 
> > 
> > Personally I think the set in the icon-naming-spec is way too
> > constrained for device handling. I think at least this subset
> 
> And we're still not done covering even that conservative subset. The
> plan years ago was to do something like this for mimetypes. It's still
> in a very early stage. Like you said, you don't have (m)any artist
> resources at Redhat, and there's a handful of us on #tango. I'd rather
> have core gnome projects polished in terms of artwork (Network manager
> looks particularly awful) rather than extending the icon coverage of the
> base theme.

Sure, that's reasonable, I just don't want G2.22 to regress too much
compared to G2.20... 

> The minimal set of devices you mention sounds like a great start in
> terms of priority for Gadgetango, but I don't think we need to mandate
> those for every theme.

Just for the people just joined the thread, the list of icons we
currently rely on is in this bug

 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506532

So the code actually ask for these icon names right now. If the icon
don't exist we fall back using '-' as a separator. E.g. if the code asks
for the icon

 drive-removable-media-flash-sd

it will try

 drive-removable-media-flash-sd
 drive-removable-media-flash
 drive-removable-media

and so forth.

> > drive-removable-media-flash
> > drive-removable-media-flash-cf
> > drive-removable-media-flash-ms
> > drive-removable-media-flash-sd
> > drive-removable-media-flash-sm
> > drive-removable-media-usb
> > drive-removable-media-ieee1394
> 
> I'd go for a generic flash reader for all these. It's the media icons
> that are important. In many cases one reader provides like 5 formats.
> Showing distinct drives is more confusing than helpful I'd say. So I'd
> go for drive-removable-media-flash from this list.

I'm fine with a generic icon for 

 drive-removable-media-flash

but this cannot be used for -usb and -ieee1394 since these are
conceptually not the same thing...

> > media-flash-cf
> > media-flash-ms
> > media-memory-sd
> > media-memory-sm
> 
> Gotta have these. Why the flash/memory distinction though?

Sorry, that was me copying/pasting from the wrong list (it should read
'flash' instead of 'memory'). Sorry, the definite list is here

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506532#c5

> > media-optical-bd     (symlink to media-optical-bd-rom)
> what is this? blueray?

Yup. Also see the list at the link above for explanation of the names
and elsewhere in the bug report for links detailing some of the media /
drive formats.

Thanks for looking at this.

     David