Re: s/xpm/png/g

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
>>>> 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.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company