On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:08:45PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 08:56:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > My biggest objection is that we haven't yet got any kind of proposal for
> > subdivision of /usr/share/images. Who wants to come up with one? Hint: it
> > would b
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 08:56:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My biggest objection is that we haven't yet got any kind of proposal for
> subdivision of /usr/share/images. Who wants to come up with one? Hint: it
> would be best if we didn't have to hack every window manager in existence
> to
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 08:12:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 12:14:05AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > When they say "monochrome", they mean .xbm's. Why not just have a
> > > /usr/share/image directory in which images of any format or size
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 09:26:39PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> /usr/share/images/icons (small images meant as window decoration,
> desktop-style icons, or button bitmaps)
>
> /usr/share/images/backgrounds (possibly larger images meant as window or
> desktop background, etc.)
>
> Probably no
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 04:09:13PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Branden Robinson writes:
> > > Well, then, we immediately throw away the advantage that a single
> > > directory
> > > name gives us.
[snip]
> My biggest objection is that we haven't
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 04:09:13PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > Well, then, we immediately throw away the advantage that a single directory
> > name gives us.
>
> What are those?
It makes searching simple.
It guarantees no name collisions in the image filenames themse
Branden Robinson writes:
> Well, then, we immediately throw away the advantage that a single directory
> name gives us.
What are those?
> We already have several directories in our system that are unspeakably
> unwieldy for a human to browse, why should /usr/share/images be any
> different?
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We already have several directories in our system that are unspeakably
> unwieldy for a human to browse, why should /usr/share/images be any
> different?
We have a few hundred in some directories; I'm not sure we have
several thousand in any yet.
Th
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 12:14:05AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > When they say "monochrome", they mean .xbm's. Why not just have a
> > /usr/share/image directory in which images of any format or size can be
> > placed? It sure would make things simpler.
>
> Just allow sub
Branden Robinson wrote:
> When they say "monochrome", they mean .xbm's. Why not just have a
> /usr/share/image directory in which images of any format or size can be
> placed? It sure would make things simpler.
Just allow subdirectories in it, please. I have about 3 thousand .xpm and
.xbm files
On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 03:00:30PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > If you don't intend for it to be used as an icon, don't put it there.
> > Meanwhile, /usr/{something}/pixmaps could reasonably be interpreted as a
> > respository for all sorts of .xpm's, regardless of their purpose.
>
> A thought
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 02:52:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm still undecided as to whether we should have
>
> /usr/share/icons
>
> or
>
> /usr/share/bitmaps
> as well as
> /usr/share/pixmaps
>
> OTOH, the former may well turn out to be fine. Why?
>
> * almost all image files identi
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:59:43PM -0800, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> I formally object to this proposal on the grounds that we have not heard
> from Branden yet, seeing as he is our resident X guru. Once Branden is
> raised one way or another on this subject, I will retract this objection.
I
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 11:03:35AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> There isn't yet a proposal, just suggestions.
> Secondly, I presume that you are only objecting to the idea of moving
> everything into /usr/share/icons. See the other suggestions of having
> symlinks from /usr/X11R6/include/X11/{bit
> > > (1) All pixmaps and bitmaps live in /usr/share/icons. End of story.
> > > *NO* pixmaps or bitmaps will live in /usr/X11R6/include.
> >
> > This one gets my vote.
>
> I'd be careful. There are technical issues and established worldwide practice
> that we could be overlooking.
>
> I onl
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:52AM +1100, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:43:03PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > This is patently absurd: there is no need to have *three* locations of
> > pixmaps and three for bitmaps on our systems, in addition to a
>
> I agree.
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
