After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 134847 - new logo is not sharp in the icon files
new logo is not sharp in the icon files
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: conglomerate
Classification: Other
Component: Code
unspecified
Other All
: Normal trivial
: ---
Assigned To: conglomerate list
conglomerate list
ghop[2007-20]
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-02-19 15:30 UTC by Geert Stappers
Modified: 2008-01-03 12:33 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
SVG version of Conglomerate logo (4.03 KB, image/svg+xml)
2007-12-30 20:03 UTC, Patrick Hulin 		Details
32x32 version of the icon (562 bytes, image/png)
2007-12-31 00:43 UTC, Patrick Hulin 		Details
Attempt at a 16x16 rework - not easy (339 bytes, image/png)
2007-12-31 01:04 UTC, Patrick Hulin 		Details

Description Geert Stappers 2004-02-19 15:30:06 UTC 
For bug #134749 was the new logo installed in the code.
However, it scaled poorly to icons who are 32x32 or even 16x16.

The files pixmaps/conglomerate-icon-32.png, pixmaps/conglomerate-icon-16.png
and debian/conglomerate_icon.xpm need some love to looks less fuzzy.

This is a bugreport that be fixed with gnome-iconeditor, Gimp or vi.
Comment 1 Geert Stappers 2004-02-20 07:59:46 UTC 
Maybye can the favo.ico from the new website help.
Comment 2 Patrick Hulin 2007-12-30 19:57:32 UTC 
I've made a vectorized version of the logo, uploading as conglomerate.svg.
Comment 3 Patrick Hulin 2007-12-30 20:03:30 UTC 
Created attachment 101865 [details]
SVG version of Conglomerate logo
Comment 4 Patrick Hulin 2007-12-31 00:43:06 UTC 
Created attachment 101878 [details]
32x32 version of the icon

Here's a cleaned up 32x32 version.
Comment 5 Patrick Hulin 2007-12-31 01:04:48 UTC 
Created attachment 101879 [details]
Attempt at a 16x16 rework - not easy
Comment 6 Nickolay V. Shmyrev 2007-12-31 02:25:33 UTC 
Thanks a lot. Hm, 32x32 version is perfect but 16x16 is somewhat broken. Why is it so?
Comment 7 Patrick Hulin 2007-12-31 04:27:01 UTC 
16x16 is not many pixels... It's difficult to get a recognizable logo at that size.
Comment 8 Nickolay V. Shmyrev 2008-01-03 12:33:36 UTC 
Ok, I've committed everything, thanks a lot for your work!