On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 15:04 +0100, Christian Persch wrote: > Hi, > Le samedi 04 février 2006 à 23:14 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit : > > On 2/4/06, Christian Persch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The latest gnome-icon-theme release has removed the "gnome-spinner" and > > > "gnome-spinner-rest" themed icons, causing breakage in (at least) > > > epiphany, nautilus, gedit and beagle. Other people have told me that > > > other removed icons also cause problems in nautilus and deskbar-applet. > > > This removal needs to be reverted. > > > > Do you have a list of those other removed icons ? > > I downloaded the 2.12.1 and 2.13.6 tarballs from ftp (you can see from > the size differences alone that it's a huge removal, 2.12.1's .bz2 is > 3MB, and 2.13.6 only 2MB!), installed in different prefixes, and did a > bit of find + diff magic, and the result seems to be that 187 icons > names that are in 2.12.1 are not in the 2.13.6 install either as regular > file or symlink (list attached).
But this list does not show which icons are in active use. It simply shows a list of files that were removed. I guarantee that there are a lot more than 187 icons in gnome-icon-theme that aren't even being used. > > > The new g-i-t has already been discussed here, > > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-January/msg00302html, > > > but insufficient emphasis seems to have been made about backward > > > compatibility. While participants have asked about how to upgrade their > > > apps, we should instead ask what happens when the user upgrades g-i-t, > > > but does not simultaneously upgrade all his apps (apps which may not be > > > maintained anymore, even!). > > > > > > Arguably the icon names provided by gnome desktop's gnome-icon-theme are > > > part of some sort of ABI; should they therefore part of our ABI > > > stability guarantee? > > > > Yes, at least we should avoid shooting our own foot by removing icon names > > that > > are in active use by gnome applications. Time to revert to > > gnome-icon-theme 2.12 ? > > IMO yes. Someone should file some bugs then. Just complaining that /some/ icons /may/ be missing isn't going to get it fixed. And, fwiw, the ABI stability guarantee doesn't seem to apply to the desktop, but only the developer platform. And gnome-icon-theme is part of the desktop, not the developer platform. Also, gnome-icon-theme was never guaranteed to be in the fallback icon path. It has only ever been the /default/ icon theme, in very informal informal and ugly ways. But I've also improved that for 2.14, and while the settings daemon is running, with gtk+ 2.8.10 or later, the "gnome" theme will always be searched for icons, before hicolor. If someone can actually provide a list of what all icons are actively in use for real, I would love to see it. -- dobey _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
