New icons for the mozilla packages

[Mike Hommey]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 02:15:48AM -0500, Eric Dorland <eric at debian.org> wrote:
> * Mike Hommey (mh at glandium.org) wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:52:24AM -0500, Eric Dorland <eric at debian.org> wrote:
> > > * Alexander Sack (asac at jwsdot.com) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:04:03AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:24:45AM +0100, Alexander Sack <asac at debian.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Is the brand sunbird mentioned somewhere in the calendar ui or is it
> > > > > > just called calendar?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is called sunbird. I could rename it calendar, though.
> > > > 
> > > > IMO, it should be called "iceape calendar", as it is not sunbird
> > > > ... you can find tri-licensed logos here:
> > > > 
> > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309293
> > > 
> > > So do we want to go with one of these icon sets? 
> > 
> > There is also the issue about urls, such as the one you go to when
> > clicking the throbber, or the default homepage, or the temporary
> > homepage you get after upgrades... I was thinking we could use about: as
> > target for these, with a special about:upgrade or something like that
> > being a modified version with a message about the software being
> > upgraded.
> > For iceape, I'm considering backporting the about: from iceweasel for
> > this, because it's so much prettier...
> 
> There's no need to use about:, we can just file:/// urls and put pages
> in the package, or (I think especially the case of upgrade page) just
> disable those special pages altogether. 

The advantage of using about: is that it already exists... I agree we
could disable the upgrade page.

> I'm still not getting a clear answer as to which icons we should go
> with :)

I have no strong opinion on that.

Mike