Subject: Bug #463: Xpm version

From: "Paul D. Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:51:26 -0400 (EDT)

We have a report that our current test for XPM 3.4f isn't sufficient;
apparently some of the new code uses a function (XpmReturnAllocPixels)
which isn't available in that version.

It's available in 3.4k (the latest).

Do we know when it was added?  Or should we just start requiring 3.4k?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 15:17:24 -0400

To answer my own first question: XpmReturnAllocPixels was added in 3.4g,
according to the xpm CHANGES file.

So, the second question: is 3.4g "good enough" as a minimum version, or
should we require the latest 3.4k.

What else new do we use?  Do we use "alloc_close_colors" in
XpmAttributes?  How about "bitmap_format"?  The color stuff, like
XpmAllocColorFunc, etc.?

Hmm, maybe we should just go to the latest.  3.4k was released on 18 Mar
1998, so it's about 18 mos. old now...

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:27:23 -0400

> 1998, so it's about 18 mos. old now...

There was some discussion about freeing the colors using a different
technique.  I think the freeing works just as well using the technique
I described, at least I haven't detected any leakage.

> -- 
>  Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Developmen

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 15:59:01 -0400

%% Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> 1998, so it's about 18 mos. old now...

  de> There was some discussion about freeing the colors using a different
  de> technique.  I think the freeing works just as well using the technique
  de> I described, at least I haven't detected any leakage.

OK...

What does that mean?  :)

Should we update the minimum requirement for XPM or not?  :)

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:11:20 -0400

> Should we update the minimum requirement for XPM or not?  :)

I think the other party in this is Tim.  He has the choice of removing
the XpmReturnAllocPixels and in that case we would not update
the minimum requirement.

If he wants to leave it in, then we would have to make the change
you suggest.

Hmm, lets check.  Yep, I'm on Xpm 3.4j.  No wonder I couldn't find
a better way to free up the colors.

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:25:04 +0100

> the XpmReturnAllocPixels and in that case we would not update
I'll have a look at the XPM source. I'm not worried about leaking
colors, we always used to do that. What I don't want to do is free up
too much.

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:00:47 +0100

> a better way to free up the colors.

I've raised the minimum version requirement of xpm to 4.3g. It's 4 years
old so I hope this doesn't cause too much inconvenience.

I couldn't find a reliable way of freeing the colors with 3.4f. The
returned pixels could include colors that were just close and since they
are not alloc'd freeing them might lead to odd behaviour.

Cheers,
Tim.