Re: Removing libstroke support?

Den 17 okt. 2016 11:56 PM skrev "Dominik Vogt" : > > Does anybody really use libstroke support? I've been using it in my configs since I started using fvwm. > It's resonsible for > quite some hardly readably code, and I suspect nobody uses it > anymore. If there's a need

Re: Future image support

Dominik Vogt writes: > During the discussion of mandarory or optional PNG support I've > started wondering if we *really* need a multitude of different > image format support in the core and the modules. > > At the moment, there's a plugin like image loading and maintenance

Re: Final long term stable version

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:25:47PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama, > > colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a > > maintainable and nice future fvwm3,

Re: Final long term stable version

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama, > colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a > maintainable and nice future fvwm3, there are certainly some old > systems still running that use some

Final long term stable version

While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama, colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a maintainable and nice future fvwm3, there are certainly some old systems still running that use some obscure features. In order to not alienate long time users from fvwm

Re: FVWM: [dominik.v...@gmx.de: Removing libstroke support?]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57:58PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > - Forwarded message from Dominik Vogt - > > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:55:56 +0100 > From: Dominik Vogt > To: fvwm-workers > Subject: Removing libstroke

Re: Removing colour map support

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:53:46PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The last time I've had a system where private colourmap support > was useful was back in 1991 or so. Many people nowadays probably > don't even know what it is: On systems with a limited number of > colours (anybody remembers

FVWM: [dominik.v...@gmx.de: Removing libstroke support?]

- Forwarded message from Dominik Vogt - Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:55:56 +0100 From: Dominik Vogt To: fvwm-workers Subject: Removing libstroke support? User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Does anybody really use

FVWM: [dominik.v...@gmx.de: Removing colour map support]

- Forwarded message from Dominik Vogt - Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:53:46 +0100 From: Dominik Vogt To: fvwm-workers Subject: Removing colour map support User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) The last time I've had a system

Removing colour map support

The last time I've had a system where private colourmap support was useful was back in 1991 or so. Many people nowadays probably don't even know what it is: On systems with a limited number of colours (anybody remembers graphics cards that could only display 256 colours in parallel) every window

Re: FVWM: Update of fvwm infrastructure

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:48:14PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Just two more; where's the weg page now, and what's the most up to > date todo list? Is it todo.md? You can see all the repositories under the fvwmorg site here: https://github.com/fvwmorg The website lives here:

Re: Future image support

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:33:00PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > The Imagemagick approach is probably too slow and unreliable, but > the second should be doable with well designed inter process > communication (which needs a redesign anyway). Uploading Pixmaps > to the server before they can be

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:30:37PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:05:04PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > 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: > > [...] > >

Future image support

During the discussion of mandarory or optional PNG support I've started wondering if we *really* need a multitude of different image format support in the core and the modules. At the moment, there's a plugin like image loading and maintenance layer in the library that takes care or reading

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:05:04PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > 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: [...] OK -- so what if we do that, but it defaults to using PNG if it's on the

Re: FVWM: Update of fvwm infrastructure

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:08:43PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > sorry, I've really lost track of recent fvwm activities, could you > please give me an update of where the relevant git repos are and > what branches to look at? And what are your plas for version > numbers and

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:36:28PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > I'm saying that as an image format used in the wild, all of the projects > I can see don't support XPMs. I'm not saying it's being removed at all. It's > an example

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > And the logical consequence of this statement is to hard code > image formats and remove the library code, no? No. The logic stops in saying that out-of-the-box, PNG image support is available. At a minimum. Other renderers are

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:04:54AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:58:10AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > This may have gotten a bit out of hand (fvwm-2.6.7): > > > > $ ./configure --disable-nls --disable-mandoc --disable-sm --disable-shape > > --disable-shm

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:53:17AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:58:10AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > But keep small and/or embedded systems in mind. It's still > > possible to use just the core without any libraries and modules > > and have a very small WM that can

Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] d30479: Make PNG support mandatory

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:58:10AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > But keep small and/or embedded systems in mind. It's still > possible to use just the core without any libraries and modules > and have a very small WM that can even draw basic window > decoration and some graphical effects. Of