Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:10:59 -0500
From:      Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill@aldan.algebra.com>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Cc:        ache@FreeBSD.org, cokane@freebsd.org, mezz@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: APNG patch for graphics/png port
Message-ID:  <494FF453.6010409@aldan.algebra.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
= Especially now that APNG is pretty much out of the bag, my opinion is
= that the libpng people should either adopt APNG into their tree, or
= yield control over PNG to Mozilla.org. It's not about being the "right"
= thing to do, it is about avoiding a highly user-confusing feature-based
= fork of a file format.

http://groups.google.com/group/muc.lists.freebsd.ports/browse_thread/thread/977f2f4c584975db

Sorry, all, for jumping onto this a little late... I don't think, FreeBSD
needs to make a judgment, who is right -- or who should do what. Not 
yet, anyway.
The question for us is how to build the ports -- whether to:

    * build the libpng as static from the sources, that come with each 
of the
      numerous Mozilla pieces and link them into each piece statically;
    * fork a separate graphics/mozilla-png -- CONFLICT it with graphics/png
      and allow the users to install one or the other (whatever LIB_DEPENDS
      on png will work with either);
    * include the patches to graphics/png -- against ache's stated opinion;
    * patch the mozilla pieces (thunderbird3, firefox3) to not require the
      controversial functionality (use it if suitable png-implementation is
      found, but don't require it).

Personally, I think, I'm in favor of the last approach, at least for now 
that
animated PNG (APNG) content is non-existent anyway -- comes only from 
mozilla.com,
and the animatedpng.com, which registered to certain "brother Brendan" 
-- the main
man of Mozilla.

If that's shouted down along with patching graphics/png itself, we ought 
to make
a graphics/mozilla-png (or graphics/apng) -- second on the list. The 
first of the
above-listed choice -- taken currently for www/firefox3 (presumably just 
because
it was the easiest one to take) -- is, in my opinion, the least desirable.

Ache is right about poor security history of png itself. By linking the 
library
statically into each application, we are making the future security 
fixes harder to
propagate -- instead of rebuilding just one port (graphics/png or 
graphics/apng),
the users will need to rebuild all of the applications...

Yours,

    -mi




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?494FF453.6010409>