https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166128
--- Comment #6 from Hossein <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Michael Weghorn from comment #5) > > 1. It does not always scale to the same size as the main LibreOffice Window. > > I don't think that's even intended and splash screens in other software > (e.g. GIMP) also don't do that. They're relatively small windows to give > some feedback that the app is in the process of starting/initializing. Sometimes it becomes important, when the splash screen becomes too big, or too small. I have seen both cases. > > 5. It is not easily localize-able. > > It's unclear to me what the problem with localization is. E.g. the messages > mentioned in comment 3 show in German just fine when I start with > LC_ALL=de_DE.UTF-8. At least part of the UI is from picture, and that is not localize-able. I see "Development Build". This comes from something like icon-themes/colibre/brand_dev/intro-highres.png vs icon-themes/colibre/brand/intro.png > > 6. It is a separate binary (oosplash) > > As far as I understand, only the X11-specific implementation was part of the > oosplash binary. That one was recently dropped in > > commit 1b4b3bd12af7b9640414055dc0bdf935db15179f > Author: Michael Weghorn > Date: Wed Oct 28 09:49:53 2026 +0100 > > tdf#169106 tdf#146153 Drop X11-specific splash screen implementation > > , the remaining one is not a separate executable. The oosplash executable > still exists and is used on Linux during startup, even if it's not > responsible for the splash screen any more. That is a good progress! Thanks for that. What are the reasons to keep that? If it is because of javaldx, I think that is one source of slowness in startup, which can probably moved to some step after startup. > In a first test/attempt quickly trying to use some weld::Dialog instead of > the custom splash screen implementation, that worked fine with gtk3 and qt6 > when using native widgets, but occasionally (but not reliably) triggered > some hang/deadlock on startup when using the vcl implementation. That might > need further investigation if welding is still planned. OK, I think that is another reason to drop it. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
