844597 - Linux theme directory name should hint at GTK dependency

Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX

(Toolkit :: Themes, defect)

Description

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

Attachment: patch

'gnomestripe' hinted at its GTK dependencies, both external (GTK stock icons) and internal ones (CSS extensions not available across platforms, implemented in widget/gtk2/). 'linux' lacks this. Additionally, when we don't use stock icons or native theming, custom images and CSS should primarily follow Gnome guidelines. The proposed 'linux_gtk' hints at that, I think, but less clearly than 'gnomestripe' did. Suggestions welcome.

The name should make it clear that Android is not supported here (looks like that is using faststripe?) and continue to make sense if e.g. a full-fledged Qt port catches on.

Comment 1

[Mounir Lamouri (:mounir)]

Why not simply "gtk" or "gnome"? or even "gtk2"/"gnome2" assuming that a "gtk3"/"gnome3" theme might be different.

Comment 2

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

I'll leave that to Dave. I suggested gtk before, gnome would also work for me. People were concerned that new contributors wouldn't be able to find this theme without the linux reference. I don't share this concern.

Comment 3

[Mounir Lamouri (:mounir)]

(In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #2)
> I'll leave that to Dave. I suggested gtk before, gnome would also work for
> me. People were concerned that new contributors wouldn't be able to find
> this theme without the linux reference. I don't share this concern.

As much as I want to help new contributors, I think we shouldn't go too far. "pmstripe", "gnomestripe" and "winstripe" were cryptic names that had no sense for the regular geek. "gtk" and "gnome" are names that should ring bells to anyone who want to write code in those directories. If that is not the case, those contributors will be able to use the occasion to learn what that means.

Comment 4

[Robert Kaiser]

Actually, I think we are using the "linux" theme for all unixes right now...

Comment 5

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:[e-mail]) from comment #4)
> Actually, I think we are using the "linux" theme for all unixes right now...

That's not at all the case.

Comment 6

[Dave Townsend [:mossop] (PTO until Aug 21st)]

Sorry but I just don't think this change is worth the churn, particularly since we build this theme for qt too (regardless of whether some abstraction layer is involved in making that work). If in the future qt actually splits into its own theme then it might well be worth revisiting and looking at linux/gtk, linux/qt or whatever bug for now this is a wontfix.

Comment 7

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

(In reply to Dave Townsend (:Mossop) from comment #6)
> Sorry but I just don't think this change is worth the churn, particularly
> since we build this theme for qt too (regardless of whether some abstraction
> layer is involved in making that work).

No abstraction layer can make it work in the sense that I described in comment 0. Maybe stock icons work somehow (then again, maybe not), but our icons are still designed for gnome and CSS extensions aren't implemented consistently across widget/gtk2/ and widget/qt/ either. Building this theme for Qt is essentially a hack that somebody probably added temporarily just to get a most basic build up and running.

Comment 8

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

Comment on attachment 717619 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

According to <http://blog.johnford.org/linux-qt-builds-of-firefox-now-being-generated-2/>, the theme is broken in Qt, as expected.

Comment 9

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Qt builds were turned off months ago (bug 772419), and were largely driven by Qt being of interest for mobile (which is now is not).

We're done here.

Comment 10

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

(In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #9)
> Qt builds were turned off months ago (bug 772419), and were largely driven
> by Qt being of interest for mobile (which is now is not).

That's good to know, but it seems to just further undermine the given rationale for the r-...

Comment 11

[Dave Townsend [:mossop] (PTO until Aug 21st)]

Comment on attachment 717619 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

(In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #10)
> (In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #9)
> > Qt builds were turned off months ago (bug 772419), and were largely driven
> > by Qt being of interest for mobile (which is now is not).
> 
> That's good to know, but it seems to just further undermine the given
> rationale for the r-...

Only a part of the rationale, even without that I don't think this is worth it.