Icon Theme spec question

[Rodney Dawes]

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 18:19 +0100, David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 29 January 2007, Brian Mattern wrote:
> > Would it make sense to require $XDG_DATA_DIRS/pixmaps as an additional            
> > fallback to handle installations outside of /usr? 
> 
> We added this directory in kde's implementation recently, but it's still only a
> gnome-compatibility hack... Wouldn't it make sense to fix gnome instead, in
> order to reduce the number of directories that must be scanned? ;-)

I don't think this is GNOME-specific. If someone installs a third-party
application, or an older application that is not updated to provide
icons in multiple sizes and everything for the specs, and that someone
wants to install it in a different prefix, you're going to have the same
issue, whether the app uses QT, GTK+, or some other toolkit. The spec
really should say $XDG_DATA_DIRS/pixmaps for compatibility.

The only real way to minimize the number of directories that get
scanned, while being able to load all of the icons, is to ensure that
as many packages as possible, get updated, and remain up to date.

The alternative solution of course, is to just remove that directory
from the spec, and tell implementations to not look there, and break
many existing configurations, and try to force people to update to
follow the spec.

-- dobey