Re: [PATCH 4/4] winecfg: Cosmetic improvements to the about panel
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
+GpImage* LoadPNGResourceW(HINSTANCE hInst, LPCWSTR lpName) +{
You should be able to use an icon for this, there shouldn't be any need to involve gdiplus. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Are PNG icons supported? It didn't look like they were when I checked. Also, sizes larger than 255px, are only partially supported in the format. So any app, including wine would have legitimate reasons to reject such a file. On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:38 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
+GpImage* LoadPNGResourceW(HINSTANCE hInst, LPCWSTR lpName) +{
You should be able to use an icon for this, there shouldn't be any need to involve gdiplus.
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
Are PNG icons supported? It didn't look like they were when I checked. Also, sizes larger than 255px, are only partially supported in the format. So any app, including wine would have legitimate reasons to reject such a file.
png icons are not supported but uncompressed ones should work fine. If it really doesn't work you can always use a bitmap. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 20:05 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
Are PNG icons supported? It didn't look like they were when I checked. Also, sizes larger than 255px, are only partially supported in the format. So any app, including wine would have legitimate reasons to reject such a file.
png icons are not supported but uncompressed ones should work fine. If it really doesn't work you can always use a bitmap.
Are you sure? I really do think using PNGs is preferable. The PNG is 22.8kB, whereas a BMP would be 237.2kB - over 10x larger! If I use a BMP, it will make the winecfg executable bloat up 25%. By contrast importing GDI+ or WIC seems to me like a small price to pay.
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
Are you sure? I really do think using PNGs is preferable. The PNG is 22.8kB, whereas a BMP would be 237.2kB - over 10x larger! If I use a BMP, it will make the winecfg executable bloat up 25%.
By contrast importing GDI+ or WIC seems to me like a small price to pay.
We can add support for PNG icons after 1.2. Adding more dependencies to winecfg is much more risky than a bloated icon. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 22:39 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
Are you sure? I really do think using PNGs is preferable. The PNG is 22.8kB, whereas a BMP would be 237.2kB - over 10x larger! If I use a BMP, it will make the winecfg executable bloat up 25%.
By contrast importing GDI+ or WIC seems to me like a small price to pay.
We can add support for PNG icons after 1.2. Adding more dependencies to winecfg is much more risky than a bloated icon.
Ok, that's cool. I'll try and get that sorted within a couple of days. One other question; I got some feedback from Andre Herschel saying that the patch failed to apply to some of the language rc files. I suspected he ran into problems with varying character encodings. Did the patch "[PATCH 4/4] winecfg: Cosmetic improvements to the about panel" apply cleanly for you?
Joel Holdsworth <joel(a)airwebreathe.org.uk> writes:
Ok, that's cool. I'll try and get that sorted within a couple of days.
One other question; I got some feedback from Andre Herschel saying that the patch failed to apply to some of the language rc files. I suspected he ran into problems with varying character encodings. Did the patch "[PATCH 4/4] winecfg: Cosmetic improvements to the about panel" apply cleanly for you?
It looked OK to me. Patch 3 got spam filtered though. I've tried to fix the spam rules, we'll see what happens when you resend... -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Joel Holdsworth