On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:10:00PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> 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.

Harder to build, how?  We've just ruled out embedded systems.  Even the most
esoteric Linux distributions fare well, as would any of the BSDs too.  Again,
if this were a problem, it's going to be with a platform which most other
people are maintaining themselves.

> 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?

Run-time functionality never helps developers.  It will help users with the
default config which is being worked on which will use images, and I think
it's important to show that off.  Having *some* consistency out-of-the-box is
important, and I am utterly convinced supporting images is a good thing here.

> 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).

And he's still able to do that with an extra library his fvwm configuration
likely never uses.

This is now all theoretical.  I am not hearing anything which says this breaks
things for any one, other that it offends peoples' sense of being forced into
something they might not use.  That's fine, since this is a small thing, IMO.

-- Thomas Adam

Reply via email to