Re: The current policy on xpm/xbm icons
apharris@burrito.onshore.com (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Daniel, for starters, this should probably be raised as a bug against
> debian-policy, just to make sure taht we don't forget about it. We
> are underway in debian-policy on finding a new way to maintain policy.
> Right now, there basically *is* no policy editor. Submitting a bug
> will make sure that someone at least looks at this problem. Assuming
> it is a policy problem, an assumption with which I am not completely
> comfortable.
Ok; I'll file a bug against debian-policy. I may try first though to see
if there's something all of us window-manager packagers can agree on.
> > 1) there is a central place for icons that packageA wishes to make
> > available to all other packages. (for example, the
> > xemacs20-support package might place xemacs.xpm in this location)
> > - the docs to the menu package suggest
> > /usr/X11R6/include/X11/{bitmaps,pixmaps} for this, but other
> > possibilities exist (some packages are already using
> > /usr/share/icons for this purpose)
>
> Isn't this specified in FHS?
I was hoping it was; however, all I can find in the FHS is the mention
that /usr/X11R6 is for the use of X windows, and that certain symbolic
links are mandated - this implies (among other things) that the directory
/usr/X11R6/include must exist, but doesn't say what must be placed in
this directory or its subdirectories, if any. The whole /usr/share
discussion is too vague to be useful.
> > 2) There's a defined policy on how a package should choose where to
> > put icons that it uses internally (for example, the .xpm files that
> > come in xemacs20-support that are used by w3 fall into this
> > category). This need not be anything too definite; even a policy
> > that says 'somewhere under /usr/share/{package}' is better than a
> > policy that says ''.
> > It would probably be a good idea if window managers had stricter
> > guidelines about where to put icons than other packages, as wm's
> > tend to all use their icons for the same purpose.
>
> Why is this really necessary? This almost seems like too much detail
> for the Policy document.
Well, this last bit is probably overkill, but it would be nice if the
window managers were all consistent, so that a user would know that if
they wish to use the fvwm95 icons in afterstep, they need to put
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fvwm95/pixmaps on their path searched for pixmaps.
This might develop over time as a consensus, but considering how far
apart the current icon-location schemes are, it seems unlikely.
> > 3) Window managers are given a directory into which they must not
> > put any icons but which they must search for icons - this should be
> > something under /usr/local or /usr/share/local or similar. The
> > idea, of course, is to allow the local sysadmin to add her own
> > icons to be used by all installed window managers.
>
> A very nice idea.
This should at least be easy to reach a consensus on - all it entails
is a simple addition to one little config. file.
> > 4) This decision about icons becomes actual policy, rather than just a
> > vague consensus followed by packagers who hear about it through the
> > grapevine.
>
> Yes that would be nice, though, while delegating out to FHS/FSSTD what
> is their to determine, and not getting too nit picky.
>
> In many situations such as this, i.e., SGML sub-policy, menu
> sub-policy, emacs-common sub-policy, a motivated party builds
> consensus and formulates a sub-policy. I think this issue is suitable
> for such an effort.
Ok; I'll be sending out an email soon then to all the current window
manager maintainers to see if we can form a consensus on some of these
locations - at the very least I'd like to get the directories for (1)
and (3) settled. I'm also going to talk to the fvwm-common maintainer
about what to do with the plethora of icons currently in
/usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps.
Reply to: