On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> bruce wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> > > All other binaries had such a designation, and all /contrib binaries
>> > > were missing them. I assume I was doing cleanup. You want the icon
>> > > removed from the backend makefile?
>> >
>> > Yes. I'm prepared to believe that not having the icons set on the
>> > contrib executables was an oversight. I'm much less prepared to assume
>> > that not marking the postgres executable was an oversight. Again,
>> > unless you *know* that this change is needed and appropriate, now is
>> > not the time to be making it, and especially not without discussion.
>>
>> OK, done with attached patch, and I added a comment about why it is not
>> labeled.
>
> I did some research on PGFILEDESC and it does what I thought it does ---
> in embeds the 'ico' file into the executable in
> /pg/tools/msvc/Project.pm, and the image looks like the attached JPEG.
> The image is of a blue elephant head.
>
> So, currently, every binary uses that icon, except for the postmaster.
> Is that what we want? You could make the argument that a daemon, like
> the postmaster, shouldn't have one, which I think is Tom's point.
It's pretty normal that daemons don't have icons.
One could argue the same for binaries that are normally never executed
by the user, just internally - but I don't think we have any of those
(we're talking EXE not DLL).
There is, AFAIK, no rule (hard or of-thumb) for "icons for GUI
programs only not commandline ones". Commandline tools usually have
it.
The argument to be made there is that when you go into the bin
directory you'll get greeted with a long list of identical elephants.
It would probably be better if we could have a *different* icon for
tools that the user is likely to execute himself - which is pretty
much just psql I think.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
