I figured out why my icons broke with this change: I wasn't using "gnome" icons, I was using "ubuntu-mono-dark". The reality is that people like to customize linux. That's part of the attraction of open-source; if you don't like something, you can change it.
I have a problem with gratuitously breaking all existing icon themes except gnome's, just because gnome wanted to do something different. Since gnome wants fewer states, this can easily be mapped onto the old naming convention with a few properly placed symbolic links.
I propose that the icon names used natively by gnome-power-manager should return to their more expressive former glory. This will return compatibility to
other icon packages. For gnome, they can have whatever names they choose, and use symbolic links to map them to the ones actually used by gnome-power-manager. This means that in gnome-speak, we'd have:
This would be a close approximation to the code as it currently stands, and it would preserve icon compatibility. I see no downside to this.
Did I miss anything? Does anybody have any reason why we shouldn't move forward with my proposal? I'll even volunteer to make the changes.
From: Richard Hughes
<hughsient gmail com>
To: Brian Hutsell <bhut_ooto yahoo com>
Cc: GPM Mailing List <gnome-power-manager-list gnome org>; Jakub Steiner <jimmac gmail com>; Jon McCann <jmccann redhat com>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 12:07:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Bug 617529] gnome power manager doesn't recognize battery at startup
On 12 May 2010 16:44, Brian Hutsell <
bhut_ooto yahoo com> wrote:
> I got both of these, installed them, and there wasn't a change from the
> behavior I'm seeing. My icons regressed with change:
Again, ccing the mailing list, hope this is okay.
> commit 52821a4b944a69a6eaca420ecce1f9e65ebd6891: Use the battery names from
> the shared-icon-specification
>
> After looking over the change, I REALLY do not like it. The resolution of
> the battery level shown is greatly diminished.
> Before this change, it supported: 000, 020, 040, 060, 080, 100
> After this change, it only supports: caution, low, good, full
Right, this decision was made by the gnome-icon-theme designers in
partnership with the GNOME3 design team. Converting to the names in
the shared-icon-specification was a pre-requisite
for the symbolic
status area that GNOME3 is going to have.
> Even if I could get the style of icons I want to appear (which I'm not
> having luck with), there is less information being expressed by the icons.
> I like the finer resolution, so I can see how much juice I've got left in my
> batteries without having to mouse over the battery icon.
I think the logic was that the notification area isn't supposed to
convey that amount of detail -- that you wanted the system overview
rather than the device specific data. That said, I pressed for more
icons but was convinced otherwise.
> If you aren't willing to revert this change, would you consider allowing an
> option for the old functionality?
I'm not keen on providing this as an option. The codebase is already
complex enough, having two separate sets of icons and logic wouldn't
be a good idea from a maintenance point of
view.
I've also cc'd in the people who are redesigning the status area for
GNOME 3. Jakub is the designer of the new icons and Jon is the design
guru. If you're not running the gnome icon theme, try deleting the
battery.png icons for your current theme, and hopefully it'll fall
back to hicolor with the new icon goodness.
Richard.
