On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:25:32AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
> Do I rightly infer from
> http://pod.tst.eu/http://cvs.schmorp.de/rxvt-unicode/doc/rxvt.7.pod#CONFIGUR
> E_OPTIONS that --enable-pixbuf is better than --enable-afterimage in that a)
> it does not increase urxvt's memory footprint as much and b) it does not
> require any special library such as libafterimage to be installed?
a) yes b) boils down to what a special library is - pixbuf is certainly
available on a lot more systems than libafterimage.
> If so, are there any reasons against using --enable-pixbuf instead of
> --enable-afterimage?
only backwards compatibility - some features (that we deemed illogical,
broken or otherwsie undesirable) have changed or have been removed.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
