I took the ai file, reduced it to the right sizes in photoshop and
used an icon editor to make it at various resolutions.
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 00:25:55 +0200, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It's platform specific, therefor it should go in port/.
> >The criterion for port/ is not whether something is
> >It's whether it's a module that helps porting source code. Which this
> >is not. Maybe we should add a new directory that contains icons and
> >other random auxiliary files such as .desktop files for Linux desktops.
> Sure, that works for me. It's a simple path change in
> Makefile.global.in. So whatever works for you guys.
> >> Is it the concept of non-sourcecode, or is it the fact that it's
> >> actually binary that is the issue? E.g. will it help if we for
> >> example uuencoded it and then just uudecode:ed it in a build rule?
> >The problem isn't so much binary files vs. CVS, although that is an
> >annoyance to take into account. The issue is that we need to have the
> >source code for all files that we distribute, where source code is the
> >preferred form for modification. This is a legal issue, a
> >philosophical issue, and a practical issue. If you say the icon is
> >created by hand, then that's OK, although up to now I've created all
> >icons programmatically from, say, a PNG or SVG source.
> Well, what I did was, as I wrote in my original mail, download it from
> http://pgsql.gavinroy.com/art/. AFAIK the "original source" of it is a
> ..ai file, though.
> I'll have to ask Gavin about how the file was actually created, it if
> twas done manually or through an automatable process. Gavin - hopefully
> you can say something on how it's done? Thanks.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster