Icon Theme Spec and Cross-desktop Themeing

Rodney Dawes dobey at free.fr
Mon Aug 4 22:17:02 EEST 2003

On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 12:17, Craig Drummond wrote:
> > Rodney Dawes <dobey at free.fr> wrote:
> > > After talking to a number of people on IRC, and the responses to this
> > > thread (or lack thereof), indicates to me that people either want it,
> > > or have no reason to argue against it. That seems quite good, since we
> > > do need standardization of names. If you are referring to the ~/.themes
> > > change, I believe that people didn't "want" it, because Mandrake, SuSE,
> > > and KDE, et al. are already used to using the "icons" dirs, rather than
> > > unifying theme directories. I could be wrong, but this is at least what
> > > I was told last time I brought up moving it to the "themes" layout.
> > 
> > It this stuff is going to be standardized, it should definitely go
> > under $XDG* instead of creating new top-level hierarchies... (but I
> > don't think you should take IRC or lack of responses as consensus from
> > KDE)
> I totally (surprise, surprise) 100000% agree...

I am not disagreeing that we should move things around. I'm disagreeing
with your urgency to not "create new top-level hierarchies" that alredy
exist, and are already in the specs. There is not creating of new
top-level or dot directories. It's just much simpler to move one thing
now, rather than breaking absolutely everything. I already have a basic
code framework written to use ~/.themes/ for icons. It's very simple. I
just need to clean it up, and move some stuff into patches for glib/gtk+
so that it will be more worthwhile for others. Your changes just don't
seem as urgent as others. Not that we shouldn't do them, but it will
be easier later on to do so, once all the themes are in the same layout.

-- dobey

More information about the xdg mailing list