Hello, I'm packaging BlackBox, currently only in COPR. But, I noticed there that one of its file conflicted with cozy, which was extremely weird. I then discovered that both BlackBox, and cozy, did the same terrible idea of installing generic icons in the hicolor-icon-theme directory. Here is the list of icons for cozy: ``` /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/account-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/bed-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/book-alert-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/book-open-variant-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/checkmark-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/clock-outline-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/download-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/downloaded-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/harddisk-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/info-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/message-flash-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/microphone-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/no-bed-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/papyrus-vertical-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/pause-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/play-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/playback-speed-symbolic.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/settings-symbolic.svg ``` This is clearly very bad and just asking for a potential future conflict. I also guess that this issue should be notified to other packagers that might have the same issue in their packages. Maybe changing the guidelines about that matter? I didn't patch this for BlackBox yet, but my initial reflexes would be to put all these in a gresource file instead.
Just looked at other programs, appending the program's name or uuid to the file seems to also be an acceptable solution.
> My initial reflexes would be to put all these in a gresource file instead. I haven't worked with these before, so I'd need to look up how to do that. > Appending the program's name or uuid to the file seems to also be an acceptable solution. I guess that'd require me to patch the program to use these modified names, as well?
> I guess that'd require me to patch the program to use these modified names, as well? Yes. And, also, now that I think of it, this will create licensing issues as well. I am considering asking in devel if it would instead be a better idea to create an icon-library-icons, as I'm pretty sure those icons originate from Icon Library: https://apps.gnome.org/fr/app/org.gnome.design.IconLibrary/
Hey, so, it seems that even though some of your icon's originate from Icon Library, that is not the case for all of them... :/ Although, good news for Licensing at least, the icons from Icon Library seem to originate from https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Design/icon-development-kit, which is under CC0.
It seems this issue has already been brought upstream. I added a comment referencing the Gnome Icon Library and asking for clarification regarding other icons. https://github.com/geigi/cozy/issues/710#issuecomment-1225461552
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 38 development cycle. Changing version to 38.
FEDORA-2023-87b33587f1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-87b33587f1
FEDORA-2023-796c505e68 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-796c505e68
FEDORA-2023-47c4f6c1ab has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-47c4f6c1ab
FEDORA-2023-87b33587f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-87b33587f1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-47c4f6c1ab has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-47c4f6c1ab` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-47c4f6c1ab See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-796c505e68 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-796c505e68` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-796c505e68 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-47c4f6c1ab has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-796c505e68 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-87b33587f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.