I have tried to create a package for that, including rpm-macros to
easily remove conflicting installed icons.
Here it is:
https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/icon-development-kit-2022.08.18-1.fc38.src.rpm
Should I submit that for review and change conflicting packages? Or
should we instead
Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> Icons are not code.
Even if they are compiled into a code binary as a resource file (as seem to
be often done in this case)?
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
Le 24/08/2022 à 09:47, Vít Ondruch a écrit :> Shouldn't we have shared
"Icon Library" package, which would solve the
conflicts?
Yes, this is what I'm also proposing, and what I think is probably the
most painless solution. Additionally, since packages like
gnome-control-center install icons
Dne 24. 08. 22 v 2:55 Lyes Saadi napsal(a):
Hello devel,
I recently packaged blackbox-terminal, but, someone packaging another
app, extension-manager noticed that his package conflicted with mine,
and a `dnf whatprovides` later noticed that it also conflicted with
cozy*. I soon discovered
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> > The CC0 has been banned for new packages in Fedora.
>
> Banned for code, not content. Icons are not code.
Good point! Thanks for the correction.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:59 PM Maxwell G via devel
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 Lyes Saadi wrote:
> > Fortunately, Icon Development Kit is under CC0, so we're kinda saved
> > from a Licensing apocalypse (although, I have to admit that this is not
> > ideal).
>
> The CC0 has been
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 Lyes Saadi wrote:
> Fortunately, Icon Development Kit is under CC0, so we're kinda saved
> from a Licensing apocalypse (although, I have to admit that this is not
> ideal).
The CC0 has been banned for new packages in Fedora.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns:
