> [Belatedly cc'd to all packages which this would affect which have > pixmaps in /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps; I missed you out earlier > due to a typo :(. Apologies if you get this message more than once. > Please reply to -policy, where the discussion will take place prior to > a proposal.]
> This message is about bitmaps and pixmaps which are intended to be > "public", that is, for use by more than just one program or small > group of programs. Thus it would include an icon to be used by a > window manager to represent an iconified xterm, but not icons for a > directory listing in Apache. > I just uploaded a new version of fvwm which has PixmapPath and > IconPath (for bitmaps) entries which match the current situation for > public icons in potato. They are as follows (split for readability): > PixmapPath /usr/local/share/icons:/usr/share/icons:/usr/share/pixmaps:\ > /usr/include/X11/pixmaps > IconPath /usr/local/share/icons:/usr/share/icons:/usr/include/X11/bitmaps:\ > /usr/X11R6/include/bitmaps > This is patently absurd: there is no need to have *three* locations of > pixmaps and three for bitmaps on our systems, in addition to a > location for locally installed icons. I want to standardise the > location (it is not discussed by the FHS). Subsequent to various > suggestions here and on the fhs-discuss list, I want to make two > suggestions of which one should be implemented: > (1) All pixmaps and bitmaps live in /usr/share/icons. End of story. > *NO* pixmaps or bitmaps will live in /usr/X11R6/include. > (2) Pixmaps are allowed to live in either /usr/share/icons or > /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps (aka: /usr/include/X11/pixmaps). > Bitmaps are similarly allowed to live in either /usr/share/icons > or /usr/X11R6/include/X11/bitmaps (aka: /usr/include/X11/bitmaps). > Either way, I want to do away with /usr/X11R6/include/bitmaps, which > is simply wrong, and /usr/share/pixmaps, which is unnecessary. > Please give your comments before I make a proposal. > Thanks, > Julian > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg Unknown package: sound Dear Debian GNU/Linux user! You've sent email to an invalid address in the `packages' virtual domain for Debian GNU/Linux. The address is not valid because there is no known package with the given name. If you think this is an error please don't hesitate to contact the maintainer [EMAIL PROTECTED] This virtual domain provides an easy way for any user to contact the maintainer of every single package. If you want to reach the maintainer(s) of a package, say cfingerd, just send a mail to <package name>@packages.debian.org - [EMAIL PROTECTED] in our example. If you want to retrieve information about the Debian GNU/Linux project please send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which will result in more comprehensive information. Joey -- Debian GNU/Linux _/ Martin Schulze The free distribution for Linux _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
