On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:08:34 +0100 Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it's much more convenient to just go "emerge theme" instead of > googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download, > download it, unpack and figure out how to install. I don't know about that. One reason Opera themes will probably never be in any tree is because installing them means you go to http://my.opera.com/, you click on a pretty picture of a theme and then click Yes when asked if you want to keep the theme, by which time the web browser has already morphed into that skin. All Opera does is drop a .zip file somewhere in $HOME/.opera/ , the contents of that file being subject to certain standards. This is definitely not rocket science. So if you want $WM to provide an easy way to install a theme you pick from a website, just fix $WM and send the patches $UPSTREAM. I tried with KDE. The reference "Get new themes" to http://www.kde-look.org/ from the Control Center is pretty lame, indeed. _Apparently_ KDE has no standard for theme packages because I see installation instructions on the pages describing themes. > It's the same reason we use emerge for installing packages instead of > using LFS. Depends on where the theme files (need to) go. If $HOME were not good enough, I can imagine there is a desire to provide a generic ebuild to which any particular theme package could be attached. I think this would be useful for purposes like corporate branding but then again, these ebuilds are not difficult to write or put in an overlay. If all $WMs' $UPSTREAM would _simply_ standardise theme packages, there would be no need for separate theme packages in the portage tree. All we are achieving right now is doing (part of) $UPSTREAM's work for them in the portage tree (in a non-standard way) instead of helping standardise their software in the first place. Kind regards, JeR -- [email protected] mailing list
