On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:12 AM, David Faure <fa...@kde.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 October 2015 21:07:16 Christoph Cullmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> So maybe this wouldn't be such a bad move after all. >> > >> > Agreed, we have frameworks (e.g. KIconThemes) "depending" on breeze, so it >> > makes some kind of sense to ship them together. >> yeah, beside that, if you want to create some self-contained installers, >> you need breeze (or some other full iconset), too. >> >> Therefore it is nice if one can grab the release matching the framework >> release one uses. > > I thought you wanted frameworks themselves to bundle icons rather > than depend on a (large) icon theme. > And I would agree -- I just don't know how this interacts with icon themes, > i.e. > is it a problem to have a single icon in the .qrc. > > But Martin's argument (apps should be able to depend on icons) is indeed > a good reason to treat the default icon theme like a framework. > > I'm OK with releasing an icon theme with KF5, provided that it follows the > KF5 rules/policies (buildsystem, versioning etc.) so that it doesn't have > to be special-cased.
So, are we moving icons to frameworks then? Did anyone actually ask the icon maintainers for input? :/ I am due to split breeze-icons from the breeze repo, so I could get that into frameworks instead of plasma right away. Equally oxygen-icons (currently part of plasma) could still be relocated to frameworks easily as it hasn't seen a release. As pointed out by Riddell on a different thread though, this bugger ought to have a tarball name different from its repo name as it was part of applications and thus has higher version numbers. > (Notice I don't say oxygen or breeze, because I'm confused about that ;) They are both "supported" and I think for both it would make sense to be in frameworks. _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
