Add material-icons

[DL6ER]

What does this implement/fix?

Several open-source project are currently exploring moving away from font-awesome (fa) as fa seems to mostly only add new PRO (= paid) icons for a few years by now. One of the best alternatives seems to be https://developers.google.com/fonts/docs/material_icons (Google's mdi = "material design icons", 7400 free icons).

This PR adds mdi in addition to fa. They can happily coexist.

Example:

<span class="material-icons">signpost</span>
<span class="material-icons md-light">signpost</span>
<span class="material-icons md-dark">signpost</span>

day

midnight

---

Related issue or feature (if applicable): N/A

Pull request in docs with documentation (if applicable): N/A

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm the following:

1. I have read and understood the contributors guide, as well as this entire template. I understand which branch to base my commits and Pull Requests against.
2. I have commented my proposed changes within the code.
3. I am willing to help maintain this change if there are issues with it later.
4. It is compatible with the EUPL 1.2 license
5. I have squashed any insignificant commits. (git rebase)

Checklist:

• The code change is tested and works locally.
• I based my code and PRs against the repositories developmental branch.
• I signed off all commits. Pi-hole enforces the DCO for all contributions
• I signed all my commits. Pi-hole requires signatures to verify authorship
• I have read the above and my PR is ready for review.

[yubiuser]

Could you add it to packages.json please.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/material-icons

Do you want to replace some icons or only have the ability to add some new?

[XhmikosR]

I'd advice against this for the same reason FA was switched to JS. We need to keep things as slim as possible. We can't keep adding stuff without considering load size and or times. IMHO either you replace FA altogether or leave it as is for now...

[DL6ER]

Why is a slim size important for something that is meant to run locally? Is saving 100KB that will be cached for sure really worth not having the option for better icon?

[XhmikosR]

Consistency is one reason. Size is another. Bloat another one. Font Awesome is currently required if I'm not mistaken by the current libraries.

My suggestion would be to either do it everywhere across the whole codebase or don't do it and maybe focus on updating AdminLTE, replacing bloated libraries by slimmer ones and so on.

I'm all for new features, don't get me wrong. But if there's a chance to do it right too, I'd personally vote for the latter.

[yubiuser]

I'm fine with merging this when we have a few icons we exchange/add. Only adding this now because we 'could use it later' doesn't seem right.