Re: s/xpm/png/g

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.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/