that's another thing that oxygen is bringing to kde4 besides just new icons: new icon names. these are in line with the icon naming spec that is still being added to and tweaked under the freedesktop.org umbrella. that means we can share icon themes between toolkits much more easily since apps targetted at the free software desktop will use the same names for similar icons. hooray!
of course, this means you need to port your app to these new names. oh no! enter Luca Gugelmann who whipped up a very cool python script which you can find in kdesdk/scripts/qt4/adapt-to-icon-spec.py.
it's an interactive script which you run from the root of your project. it catches the obvious things, like uses of KIcon and KIconLoader and skips things it can figure out can't be icons. for the fuzzies, it asks you as can be seen in this screenshot:
ok, the screenshot is a bit ugly but i had to get it down so it would fit decently on the blog ;) as you can see it shows context and you can request more of it by pressing 'm'. there is a help menu ('?'), but generally you just hit 'y' or 'n'. voila. couldn't be easier, really.
things left to do:
- port the remaining handful of modules: hopefully will be done by end of today
- modify the icon themes in kdeartwork/IconThemes to also use the new names. taking Luca's script which lists all the name changes and working from there would be a good place to start. just a bunch of svn mv's really, perfect for scripting.
- figure out the legality of the CC 3.0 SA-BY license for use with artwork loaded from disk when it comes to, say, being Free enough for inclusion in even Debian and how it interacts with both proprietary and *GPL software. obviously a job for a lawyer.
3 comments:
one word: YAY!
Too funny!
Am I correct in surmising that number three came from the Newsforge article the other day that you appeared to be none too pleased with?
Does this mean it is now a good thing that they repeated non/preliminary-news as it gave you a heads up on a potential problem (i.e., CC3 and the DFSG)?
PS: Sorry, I know this is probably a bit of a provocative comment, but I just couldn't resist! *grin*
@anon: no, i was aware of this issue quite a bit prior to that. in fact, waited for the CC 3.0 licenses because we knew the 2.0 licenses were problematic and that they were attempting to clear up issues with 3.0. that should give you an idea of how long ago we had discussed this issue =)
now that oxygen is in svn, there area few things left to clear up, and one of them is getting facts on our side regarding licensing so when debian and other such... enthusiastic ponderers of freedom scratch their heads over it we can help them out.
personally, i think it's a non-issue, but i'd like to head off the over zealous in the community with some facts.
Post a Comment