| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
On 06/22/2012 08:11 PM, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:41:22 -0400 "Jasper St. Pierre" <jstpierre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaertnma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:49:32 -0400 "Jasper St. Pierre" <jstpierre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The issue is that GTK+ doesn't transfer a high-quality icon over the wire. I don't think it's a good idea to try and transfer a 96x96 and 48x48 icon over the wire, either.I see. So it avoids overhead over for remote applications. That's nice. But in my case it's not a network connection. The application runs locally. Maybe I set some flag wrong and gtk believes I'm using a network connection? What flag could that be?Whether or not you actually run over network, there's still a wire protocol involved.What is the purpose of the optional larger icons the documentation talks about? http://developer.gnome.org/gtk/stable/GtkWindow.html#gtk-window-set-icon-list
This allows you to have 16x16, 22x22, 24x24, and 32x32 sized icons. At these sizes, you'd often want specially-designed small icons when the window manager displays them in that size. That's uncommon these days, of course...
If you're on the local machine, then just install a damn desktop file. It's a disappointing workaround, but that's how it's done because we happen to be using systems that were designed at a time when having an icon larger than 32x32 was considered absurd. Everybody hates X11 for this and a million other reasons, but it's just not that easy to get rid of.
Thomas _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
|
|