Re: s/xpm/png/g
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: s/xpm/png/g |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTik7ky=PERHUZnT3v=LWNA-08nXUu8ODtG=nk450@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: s/xpm/png/g (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 19:43, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 18:18, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 14:55, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> The (large) patch at >>>>>> http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/embedded_images_infra-v8.diff >>>>>> replaces all the XPM images in pgAdmin with PNG ones. This offers us >>>>>> two major advantages: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) XPM images aren't supported by many graphics tools, and almost >>>>>> always require manual editing to fix the internal naming anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) XPM images don't support alpha transparency. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch is a little complex, as it's not straightforward to embed >>>>>> PNG images at build time. Here's what it does: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Adds a new project, png2c, on which the pgAdmin project is dependent. >>>>>> - Adds a new build rule for .png files, which will cause them to be >>>>>> pre-processed with png2c, to create .pngc files which are C source >>>>>> code, containing the PNG data and some accessor functions and macros. >>>>> >>>>> Didn't we get rid of the beerware license in postgresql, to make >>>>> corporate lawyers happy? Are you sure it's a good idea to introduce it >>>>> to pgadmin here? >>>> >>>> I don't see why not. It doesn't *require* us to do anything. It just >>>> says *if we think* it's worth it, we *can* buy him a beer. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> It was removed from postgresql because of potential concerns from >>> *lawyers*. Don't expect them to be *logical*. >> >> Whose lawyers? Ones from companies that insist their staff include >> confidentiality clauses on emails to public mailing lists by any >> chance? Certainly not postgresql.org lawyers. > > Yes, I believe so. Which? -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: