On Tue May 01 12:50, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > --- Matthew Johnson <matt@matthew.ath.cx> escribió: > > > Probably, but it will be more work. I don't see any real reason why if > > amanith is packaged we shouldn't use it all the time. > > To give users the option. Less dependencies, lighter install. Also being able > to give upstream a optimal patch. Is it that much work? > well, we're shipping a load of png files as it is, I'm not sure that amanith instead is much of a lose. I also don't buy 'less dependencies' as a reason---users don't have to care about that, apt does it all for them. I'm also not sure the users want or need the option, svg+amanith is almost always better than png; when it isn't, they probably don't want to be playing FoF on that machine, it's so under powered. I can't imagine the overhead of amanith is all that noticeable. It wouldn't be a lot of work to dynamically detect amanith (they already dynamically detect other things), but since they already have an if (png) png else svg code, just using that and fixing the one init line will be easier. Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature