On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> 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?


1) User wants to compile himself; libpng-devel is not installed =>
   could still compile without having to install if he wanted to.
   Now he's forced to figure out the package name and install it.
   Sure, no much harder, but still a little.  This will definitely me
   after the next distro upgrade.

2) For some reason, libpng is incompatible on the system => you
   can't compile fvwm until you fix that distro problem.

  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.

In my eyes, relying on third party software being available and
not broken is always bad.  One can do it if there are good
reasons, but I don't see any here.  You *can* use PNG in any
configs coming with fvwm and still allow people who don't want
them do their own thing.  There's no conflict between these two.

>  That's fine, since this is a small thing, IMO.

So, I see we won't find a common point of view.  In my eyes,
taking away the choice without any benefit (because every distro
compiles fvwm with PNG support anyway) is bad.  People may want to
use it on tiny systems like a Raspberry Pi and this may make life
more difficult for them.

The intention of having a show off or default config using PNG is
a good idea, but one can still have an option "--disable-png" and
tell people:

  Warning:  You have disabled PNG image support.  While fvwm works
  fine without it, the sample configurations coming with fvwm (or
  configurations provided by other people) use PNG images that
  cannot be displayed without PNG support.  Other than that, these
  configurations should work fine.

And if the system does not have a useable libpng-devel installed:

  Error:  No useable version of libpng found.  PNG image support
  is required for the sample configurations coming with fvwm, but
  may be disabled with the --disable-png configure option.  It is
  strongly recommended to not switch off PNG support unless the
  system where fvwm is intended to run has critical size
  limitations.  there are critical size limitations on the target
  system.  system

(A default configuration may as well require additional libraries
or tools that are otherwise optional.)


Dominik ^_^  ^_^


Dominik Vogt

Reply via email to