Description of problem: In Fedora 21 we show any valid application in the software center with an application icon of 32x32 or larger. Currently a 32x32 icon has to be padded with 16 pixels of whitespace on all 4 edges, and *also* has to be scaled x2 to match other UI elements on HiDPI screens. This looks fuzzy, out of alignment and lowers the quality of an otherwise beautiful installing experience. For Fedora 22 we are planning to increase the minimum icon size to 48x48, with recommended installed sizes of 24x24, 48x48, 64x64 and 256x256 (or SVG). Modern desktop applications typically ship multiple sizes of icons in known locations, and it's very much the minority of packages in Fedora (69 out of 1042) that only ship such small icons. I'm asking package maintainers to install a larger icon than 32x32 in the Fedora package. Most of the time this will involve just installing a different icon from the tarball, but could also mean contacting upstream and asking them for larger icons and a new tarball release. If you're asking upstream, please ask for a 256x256 or 64x64 icon, as the latter will probably be the minimum size for F23 and beyond. If you want to fix up F20 and F21 too that would be great, but not expected. At the end of November I'll change the minimum icon size in the AppStream generator so that applications not fixed will not be shown in the software center. You can of course install this application in F22 with dnf on the command line, but it won't be visible in the software center until they are installed manually. Additional info: If you're unclear on what needs to be done in order to be listed in the software center, refer to this https://github.com/hughsie/appstream-glib#what-is-an-application or comment here. Thanks! Richard.
Sorry, I do not have any Gnome. Think about delegation to software center instead to handle small icons properly. Alternatively, feel free to submit patches. :o)
The pixelation is intentionally, because the RETRO factor is a main feature. See also for 122x122: http://www.zwodnik.com/media/cache/4b/51/4b511bd606f0708278c0990b61ba64d6.png Another idea: Use a level screenshot as big icon? Just kidding.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > Sorry, I do not have any Gnome. Think about delegation to software center > instead to handle small icons properly. AppStream is used by the KDE software center too. > Alternatively, feel free to submit patches. :o) http://www.xenoterracide.com/2010/05/dont-say-patches-welcome.html
(In reply to Richard Hughes from comment #3) … > http://www.xenoterracide.com/2010/05/dont-say-patches-welcome.html Your link is not very helpful for a possible patch or bugfix, I see only a lot of blabla there. Again from my comment #2: > The pixelation is intentionally, because the RETRO factor is a main feature. I guess that upstream sees that in a similiar opinion.
Raphael, may I remind to on our code of conduct? http://fedoraproject.org/de/code-of-conduct -> Be respectful. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners.
https://sourceforge.net/p/gnurobbo/feature-requests/9/
% find /usr/share/icons/hicolor /usr/share/pixmaps -name gnurobbo.png |xargs file /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/gnurobbo.png: PNG image data, 16 x 16, 2-bit colormap, non-interlaced /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/gnurobbo.png: PNG image data, 32 x 32, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/gnurobbo.png: PNG image data, 48 x 48, 2-bit colormap, non-interlaced /usr/share/pixmaps/gnurobbo.png: PNG image data, 32 x 32, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced
Great, thanks!
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=726357
Created attachment 951350 [details] Better icon from Debian
https://sourceforge.net/p/gnurobbo/feature-requests/18/
Please test with putting the 48x48 icon from hicolor path into /usr/share/applications, what is the result?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > Please test with putting the 48x48 icon from hicolor path into > /usr/share/applications, what is the result? I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, sorry.
(In reply to Richard Hughes from comment #13) > I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, sorry. Do you understand comment #7? Please use the 48x48 png file as the desktop icon, and tell me if it satisfies your need. I can not find any bigger one, sorry.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #14) > (In reply to Richard Hughes from comment #13) > > I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, sorry. > > Do you understand comment #7? Please use the 48x48 png file as the desktop > icon, and tell me if it satisfies your need. I can not find any bigger one, > sorry. The install destination is incorrect in the RPM; you need to install the icon to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/gnurobbo.png -- i.e. with the "apps" subfolder. Thanks.
(In reply to Richard Hughes from comment #15) > The install destination is incorrect in the RPM; you need to install the > icon to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/gnurobbo.png -- i.e. with the > "apps" subfolder. Thanks. Thanks for this useful hint. I'll fix it in the next official release. We're still waiting for legalization of the review, see bug #1149423.
http://sourceforge.net/p/gnurobbo/feature-requests/18/
gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc21
gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20
gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.