On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:09:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 04:48:34PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Maybe it's a silly question, but *why* does fvwm need mandatory
> > image support at all?  Arent's images in a window manager just
> > gimmicks?
> It's not a silly question, but I'd hoped the commit message said enough.
> Gimmick is a matter of perspective.  I'm trying to stike a balance through
> useability.  I don't think it's unreasonable to assume one image library as
> the de facto; others are still available.  I'm trying to frame this in terms
> of:
> * Making the default config useable and useful (which from what I'm seeing,
>   does entail some form of image loading (for icons im menus and elsewhere)
> * Integrating with other third-party applications which generate menus (which
>   use PNG).

I completely understand that, and PNG seems to be a sensible
choice.  The thing I'm unsure about is whether it should be
possible to build fvwm without any libraries and expendable
features to have a lean, minimalistic WM.  But I've honestly no
idea whether anybody did that in the recent past or not.
Perosnally, if I weren't too lazy to change the config, I could
perfectly do without image support:  The menu logo is just
decoration, icons work as well when done as text, and the
FvwmButtons images could be replaced by thext or just menu


Dominik ^_^  ^_^


Dominik Vogt

Reply via email to