Something in the icons seems to have changed, so the bash scripting that copies and links them around needs some adjustments. Minor :).

It seems like the 96x96 application icons are not in the upstream tarball

$ find icons -name '*96*'
icons/pmd_96.png
icons/prd_oth_96.png
icons/prd_96.png
icons/pmd_mso_96.png
icons/pmd_oth_96.png
icons/tmd_96.png
icons/tmd_oth_96.png
icons/prd_mso_96.png
icons/tmd_mso_96.png

These are only the icons for the various MIME types.

BTW. I also asked about their replacement of existing tarballs, which leads to checksum mismatches of the current version:

This is a bit tricky for us. We have to version RPM and DEB packages, so we do the same for TGZ. And, since we send out e-mails with download links, we use .htaccess rewriting to always point them to the latest version. Could you host the TGZ packages yourselves? Then you are in control which version is delivered under which URL.

https://forum.softmaker.com/viewtopic.php?f=320&t=19327

Something in the icons seems to have changed, so the bash scripting that copies and links them around needs some adjustments. Minor :).

@danieldk Can you provide a fix for that?

Something in the icons seems to have changed, so the bash scripting that copies and links them around needs some adjustments. Minor :).

@danieldk Can you provide a fix for that?

As I mentioned, I don't think it the bash scripts, the 96x96 program icons do not seem to be in the upstream tarball. I am not sure how we could fix that, except for reporting this to SoftMaker.

Since there are still a lot of other icon sizes (32, 48, 64, 72, 128, 256, 512, 512), I guess one solution would be to not include the 96x96 application icons, what do you think?

Since there are still a lot of other icon sizes (32, 48, 64, 72, 128, 256, 512, 512), I guess one solution would be to not include the 96x96 application icons, what do you think?

Seems reasonable. I have pushed a commit that removes the resulting broken symbolic links.