Hi! On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Torrance, Douglas escribió:
> I noticed a few things while looking at the default WMWindowAttributes. > > * Many of the icons don't ship with Window Maker (e.g., ColorGNU.xpm for > Emacs), but instead are in the WindowMaker-extra tarball. (Similarly, > the Debian default WMWindowAttributes, which has mostly different icons, > references icons in the wmaker-data package, which is only suggested but > not required by the main wmaker package.) Yes, IMO this is a problem. The related icons, should be included in the wmaker package (tarball). If the icon doesn't exist, it shouldn't be used in configuration files. The wmaker-data and wmaker packages are based on upstream, and then they have the same problems (or more, because I am the maintainer ;-) ) > * Many of the icons are for rarely used software in a modern system > (e.g., Netscape). Yes, but, IMO, we should include "legacy" icons. Probably we shouldn't use them in the config files, but include them in the tarball. Icons are small pictures. If someone wants use old feeling, the icons are included. > * The current version of Window Maker does a mostly great job of getting > icons from applications, and so declaring icons in WMWindowAttributes > seems unnecessary outside of things like the dock, clip, and drawers > (unless the user wants an icon theme). > > At this point, leaving things the way they are seems to only be of > interest for historic purposes. I'd like to make some changes, but I > wanted to see how people felt about the issue before I started submitted > patches. moreinfo++ Thanks kix > Thanks! > Doug > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. -- ||// //\\// Rodolfo "kix" Garcia ||\\// //\\ http://www.kix.es/ -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
