On Mar 19, 2015, at 21:57, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 March 2015 19:30:40 Konstantin Ritt wrote: >> I didn't say we *should* do it. Simply asking for opinions. >> >> There is no any single .ico file in qtbase (except of ones in >> qicoimageformat auto-test) and we don't support -no-ico/-qt-ico/-plugin-ico >> configure options, which makes it a good candidate. > > There are plenty of icons on websites (favicon.ico), which is why the ICO > engine was placed in Qt in the first place. In addition, there's no > third-party > library required, this is all Qt-based code. I don't see why it should be > disabled at all. > >> There is also just a single .gif file in widgets/movie example, though we >> support -no-gif configure option and widgets/movie example never checks if >> gif format is really supported. >> ^ So why bloating qtbase? > > Removing the files will not make the repository smaller. The actual checkout > size for most people will also be the same, since we're not proposing > removing > from Qt, just moving around. Several years ago I started writing a giflib-based plugin with features that the existing one doesn’t have (to read and write text comments in the gif file was what I wanted, but probably giflib can do a few more things too). If I was to get it integrated, where should it live? It would need a config option, because of depending on a system library: the existing plugin is better if you don’t have giflib, or don’t want the dependency. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
