Re: On disk theme format for icons?

[Rodney Dawes <dobey free fr>]

There is no reason it could not be changed. It is a very minor change,
and would make it fit in more with the rest of the desktop. The point
here is to make things as extensible as possible, future-wise. GNOME 2.2
is not yet a final release. It is only frozen, and this change would not
affect any of those changes afaict. I also would not forsee any problems
with KDE either. I don't think we can call it a standard yet either, as
it is proposed and not yet in wide use. We should solve these problems
before it is put into extended wideband use, it will make things much
smoother down the road. I'll also point out yet again that my original
mail was sent out in *August*. And it was ignored, because you and a
bunch of other people wanted a quick implementation of metatheme, rather
than a spec for metathemes. Oh well. *sigh*

-- dobey

On Fri, 2002-12-27 at 11:33, Dave Bordoley wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-26 at 20:23, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2002-August/msg00345.html
> 
> > Why should they be treated differently or be in
> > a different directory structure than the themes for metacity and gtk+?
> > It makes no sense.
> > 
> 
> Well I believe the icon themes spec specifically states that icon themes
> should be stored in ~/.icons and $prefix/share/icons, which is somewhat
> incompatible with your suggestion.
> 
> dave