Some Icon Theme Spec fixes

Andrew Conkling andrewski at
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 mailing list