On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I don't think anyone misunderstood that you have trouble disagreeing
> without also being insulting. You are pushing off people who might
> otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective by constantly engaging in a
> discussion the w
Hi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> which would be in fact more a reason to start realize that
> people are different in how they express things and not all
> is that insulting meant as it could be taken
>
https://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Please read the above l
Am 02.10.2014 um 18:04 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> i doubt that you people are that
> hypersensitive about every single word in real life too
>
> People wouldn't say this if it was the first time you wrote
> something like this
w
Hi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i doubt that you people are that
> hypersensitive about every single word in real life too
>
People wouldn't say this if it was the first time you wrote something like
this. Also since you asked, I am usually *far* more curt generally
mail i responded to *word by word* - no idea
where that leaves space for interpretation independent how
often quotes are stripped to lose context
---- Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff: Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px
Datum: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:32:02 +0100
Von: R
Hi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you misunderstood me
>
I don't think anyone misunderstood that you have trouble disagreeing
without also being insulting. You are pushing off people who might
otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective by constantly engaging in a
di
On 2 October 2014 15:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
> to make some distribution clown happy
If you read the link, if you ship an AppData file the 5 year rule
doesn't kick in. That's something useful that the packager *can* do to
the otherwise perfect desktop application.
Richard
--
devel mailing list
Am 02.10.2014 um 16:50 schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 02.10.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Richard Hughes:
>>> On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 02.10.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> > On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> >> I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
> >> because they don't live up to some visual quali
Am 02.10.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>> I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
>> because they don't live up to some visual quality guidelines.
>
> There's actually a whole load of reasons why we'd bla
On 2 October 2014 15:17, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager,
> because they don't live up to some visual quality guidelines.
There's actually a whole load of reasons why we'd blacklist
applications:
https://github.com/hughsie/appstre
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Designing an application for the lowest common denominator does not
> give you a high-quality cohesive application that's easy to use and
> nice on the eye. It gives you a miss-mash of ugly noise that's hard to
> use. I think it's fine that
On 1 October 2014 17:15, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> Is it only me, that is thinking, that all there rules to make things looks
> prettier in Gnome Software or you package will get excluded if you dont
> live up to the rules
It's probably not just you.
> is a little hostile for packagers.
Actually,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes
wrote:
> At the moment applications have to provide an icon >= 32x32px in size
> to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
> center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
> applications ship a 64x64
Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 03:07 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Kalev Lember wrote:
> >> # If no desktop files are installed, return immediately
> >> if ! ls -A "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"/usr/share/applications/ 2>/dev/null; then
> >>exit 0
> >> fi
> >
> > That tests whether the directory exis
Kalev Lember wrote:
> # If no desktop files are installed, return immediately
> if ! ls -A "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"/usr/share/applications/ 2>/dev/null; then
> exit 0
> fi
That tests whether the directory exists, not whether it contains
desktop files. If that's what you want, then
«if [ -d "$RPM_B
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 08:19 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I think the software center and shell display icons at the same size,
> so
> it matters equally to both.
I would be smarter if I checked such facts BEFORE sending emails and not
immediately AFTER. The icons in Software are indeed smalle
On 10/01/2014 03:07 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Kalev Lember wrote:
>> # If no desktop files are installed, return immediately
>> if ! ls -A "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"/usr/share/applications/ 2>/dev/null; then
>> exit 0
>> fi
>
> That tests whether the directory exists, not whether it contains
> deskt
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 08:57 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
> That might be a good reason, but it's not the one given at the start
> of this proposal, that was that larger icons are needed for the
> software centre (i.e. for applications to get included in the
> installer) due to higher resolution display
On 09/29/2014 01:19 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Please put the actual validation into an external script,
> brp-desktop-file-validate or whatever. That way its consistent with the
> other similar things, easier to test-run outside rpmbuild and unlike
> inlining, has room for future growth.
Thanks
On 30 September 2014 02:09, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 22:05 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
>> Who is using magnifying glasses to view icons?
>
> Icons are displayed far larger in GNOME Shell than in other desktop
> environments, and the difference between an SVG icon and a 256x256
On Monday 29 of September 2014 12:40:30 Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 29 September 2014 12:23, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> > Couldn’t we just stop this madness of bitmaps?
+10
>
> SVGs are not a silver bullet.
Well, it's better than bitmaps.
> You'd want a very different source SVG
> file for an icon th
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 22:05 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
> Who is using magnifying glasses to view icons?
Icons are displayed far larger in GNOME Shell than in other desktop
environments, and the difference between an SVG icon and a 256x256 icon
(the mandatory minimum size for GNOME apps, and I'm defi
On 29 September 2014 12:40, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 29 September 2014 12:23, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>> Couldn’t we just stop this madness of bitmaps?
>
> SVGs are not a silver bullet. You'd want a very different source SVG
> file for an icon that's designed to be displayed at 22x22, to an icon
> de
Hi
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'd rather see this done in a way that it only executes when
> desktop-file-utils is installed, which should already be a buildrequire for
> all packages containing desktop files I think.
>
Agreed. I would also like to see this be part
On 29 September 2014 12:23, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Couldn’t we just stop this madness of bitmaps?
SVGs are not a silver bullet. You'd want a very different source SVG
file for an icon that's designed to be displayed at 22x22, to an icon
designed to be displayed at 256x256. Plus, rendering SVGs with
On 2014-09-26, 10:19 GMT, Richard Hughes wrote:
> At the moment applications have to provide an icon >= 32x32px in size
> to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
> center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
> applications ship a 64x64 (and idea
On 09/26/2014 05:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 09/26/2014 02:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember wrote:
An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji
buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's built
in koji.
If you k
drago01 wrote on 2014-09-26 13:46 (UCT+0200):
> hidpi is about higher pixel destiny (i.e same as you get with
> phones today). So my 3200x1600 (14 inch) laptop is effectively just a
> 1600x900 screen with twice as high pixel destiny. So eveything gets
> render at twice the size to not be ridiculou
On 09/26/2014 02:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji
>> buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's built
>> in koji.
>
> If you know how to do that, that'd be awes
On 26 September 2014 13:57, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Actually scaling icon by integer factor should not have noticable
> impact on quality.
It really does, maybe not in an absolute way like you suggest, but in
a subjective way. When you're used to everything being crisp and
clear, suddenly a low r
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:56:47PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > (And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
> > elements
>
> You can either sacrifice quality or size; padding a 32px icon to 128px
> with a giant white border would keep the icon crisp and sharp, but
>
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> > (And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
>> > elements the same and only add detail, which is inconsistent with
>> > di
On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember wrote:
> An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji
> buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's built
> in koji.
If you know how to do that, that'd be awesome.
> And same thing with desktop-file-validate, inst
On 09/26/2014 02:23 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> When to warn them? In rpmbuild? In the koji logs no human ever reads?
> You can get this kind of warning now, if you BR: libappstream-glib and
> then do a:
>
> %check
> DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT appstream-util check-root
>
> ...but this requires the p
On 26 September 2014 13:12, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Yes, I'd say it's time to cut off apps with 32x32 icons. Padding 48x48
> icons to 64x64 might still be OK though, especially since the number of
> affected apps is quite large.
Right, this is probably the best course of action now.
> In any case,
On 09/26/2014 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> At the moment applications have to provide an icon >= 32x32px in size
> to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
> center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
> applications ship a 64x64 (and ideall
- Original Message -
> On 26 September 2014 12:36, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > This is $n-th gradual tightening of the rules
>
> Right, I think that's the only way to transition from having no rules
> of inclusion, to a large cohesive set of high quality applications.
> Dropping 95% of appl
On 26 September 2014 12:36, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> This is $n-th gradual tightening of the rules
Right, I think that's the only way to transition from having no rules
of inclusion, to a large cohesive set of high quality applications.
Dropping 95% of applications in the software center from F21
- Original Message -
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > (And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
> > elements the same and only add detail, which is inconsistent with
> > displaying low-resolution icons in a smaller physical size, but
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> (And I always thought that HiDPI is trying to keep the screen size of
> elements the same and only add detail, which is inconsistent with displaying
> low-resolution icons in a smaller physical size, but what do I know…)
No hidpi is about
Hello,
- Original Message -
> At the moment applications have to provide an icon >= 32x32px in size
> to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
> center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
> applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally, 128x128
At the moment applications have to provide an icon >= 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally, 128x128/64x64@2 also) icon for
the shell and gnome-
43 matches
Mail list logo
