Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: s/xpm/png/g

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: s/xpm/png/g
Date: 2011-03-07 18:47:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 19:43, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 18:18, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 14:55, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> The (large) patch at
>>>>>> 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 lawyers.
> Yes, I believe so.


Dave Page
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK:
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-03-07 20:39:08
Subject: pgAdmin III commit: Disabled triggers are displayed with another icon
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-03-07 18:45:51
Subject: Re: s/xpm/png/g

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group