On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 12:39 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
> I second that. Another reason icons should stay in one file is that
> breaking them would slow down Inkscape loading a lot. It's a very
> sensitive area because people strongly dislike programs that take
> forever just to start up. So please rethink this aspect.
Actually, the way Inkscape handles icons now, it renders every instance
of an icon separately. So the same icon in three different places gets
rendered three times. With librsvg's gdk-pixbuf loader and IconFactory,
the icon is only rendered once and the resulting pixbuf is used
everywhere the icon is used.
Also, librsvg is meant to be a compact, portable, and very fast
renderer. It's sole purpose is to render lots of small icons and simple
graphics very quickly for GNOME. The Inkscape renderer's sole purpose
is to be a super leet, high quality, very compliant and demanding
drawing application for artists and professionals. It's most certainly
heavier-weight and slower than librsvg at rendering its own icons.
> I'm also against using librsvg in any manner or form. Not only is it a
> new and redundant dependency, but it is known to be broken in several
> important ways. We must use our own renderer, if only because it's
> safer (created and displayed by the same app, no surprises) and helps
> discover Inkscape bugs (it's like running a test suite on each loading
> of the program).
As soon as Inkscape's renderer works as seamlessly with GTK+ and is
available as a dynamic gdk-pixbuf loader, I'll agree with you.
And, technically, it's not a dependency on Inkscape, its a dependency on
GTK+, and it's a "runtime dependency" at that (which, admittedly, is
still a dependency nonetheless). :)