(In reply to comment #9)
> The discussion about the upstream bug feels like very much aimed at the
> developers, e.g. see this line:
Free to you to try moving to somewhere else, GNOME is all about users too.
> Will Ubuntu follow Gnome in choices like these? Or is there room for different
> choices than the upstream package?
We can pick other choices (we already are doing it, upstream have no icons for
these entries, the default icon is an ubuntu patch)
> What difference would it make how much submenus are open at a time?
What is the issue to have a generic icon, why do you want to set them by submenu ?
> My main points are that there should be an icon, it should look good and it
> should represent the programs function as good as possible, which a generic icon
> doesn't.
Right, every desktop file should point to a correct icon. That's the case with
the default desktop, there is no reason to not fix other packages. We can also
make a better default icon, as said before suggestions about this are welcome ...
(In reply to comment #9)
> The discussion about the upstream bug feels like very much aimed at the
> developers, e.g. see this line:
Free to you to try moving to somewhere else, GNOME is all about users too.
> Will Ubuntu follow Gnome in choices like these? Or is there room for different
> choices than the upstream package?
We can pick other choices (we already are doing it, upstream have no icons for
these entries, the default icon is an ubuntu patch)
> What difference would it make how much submenus are open at a time?
What is the issue to have a generic icon, why do you want to set them by submenu ?
> My main points are that there should be an icon, it should look good and it
> should represent the programs function as good as possible, which a generic icon
> doesn't.
Right, every desktop file should point to a correct icon. That's the case with
the default desktop, there is no reason to not fix other packages. We can also
make a better default icon, as said before suggestions about this are welcome ...