On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:36:28PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I'm saying that as an image format used in the wild, all of the projects
> I can see don't support XPMs.  I'm not saying it's being removed at all.  It's
> an example showing that FVWM is carrying around optional support for it.
> *That's* a maintainer burden in that the cost of removing it is high because
> someone out there (presumably with a long beard, I couldn't say), is still
> using it.

Only if you ever want to remove it, which you said you wouldn't

> > Making PNG support mandatory is not going to have any positive
> > effect on code size or maintainability unless something else is
> > removed in favour of PNG.
> You mean making it optional?  I disagree there.  We already _support_ it.  Go
> look at all the Linux distros which package FVWM.  You'll quickly see what
> they chose to compile in.

Then what is the gain of making it mandatory if every distro has
it anyway?  With that line of argumwnt the only effect of making
it mandatory is making fvwm harder to build for some people.

> You'll have to prove to me there's a negative impact on FVWM.  You'll have to
> prove to me the size increase is hampering something important, and you'll
> definitely have to tell me how this is a problem for maintainability, when we
> already support PNG image loading.  No additional code is being added or taken
> away here, it's just a compile-time change.

> This change is additive, and helps FVWM out-of-the-box. 

In what way does it help fvwm, or us developers or the users if
PNG support is now guaranteed to be there while it just happened
to be there unless the user compiled fvwm herself?

> And sorry, embedded systems don't count because as you've also seen, FVWM is
> too large anyway, even with all the optional libraries taken out and the
> binary stripped.

> That's also not taking into account modules as well---which,
> by the way, you also have with FVWM as a consequence.

Modules are optional.  That's the only point of the module
concept (everything they do could be done easier in the core).  If
you don't want them, you don't have to install them (which is a
bit of manual work with the current Makefiles).  No vital
functionality is or should ever be in a module.

So, let's forget about embedded systems, but people do use it in
environments where simplicity and small installation size counts
(e.g. a buddy of mine who uses it as the interface of his home
grown media/entertainment setup, and he is explicitly happy that
he did now have to have any image support but could do with simple
menus and vector buttons).


Dominik ^_^  ^_^


Dominik Vogt

Reply via email to