Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 01:52:08 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: sobomax@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/print/ghostscript-afpl Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/print/ghostscript-afpl/files escputil.contrib.mak hpijs.contrib.mak patch-hpijs:makefile patch-hpijs:platform.h patch-src:unix-gcc.mak stp.contrib.mak ports/print/ghostscript-afpl/scripts ... Message-ID: <200112290652.fBT6qBf42452@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <1009580184.225.0.camel@notebook>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> It will read JPEG images, that Adobe thinks are conformant. I think, >> it is a good thing. As I say elsewhere, the define only affects the >> reading part of the JPEG library. Which means, we become more >> accepting to what others generate, while still generating only what >> everybody can accept. > > If they (Adobe) feel the right to violate the standard in their own > propiertary format - so be it, but I don't see any significant reason > why standalone non-conformat images shouldn't be rejected. And why are you not expressing disagreement with the Ghostscript people, who chose to accept the non-strictly-conformant JPEG? What's wrong with accepting it, for crying out loud? In many different places the "strict generation, generous acceptance" strategy is used, why not here? Are you afraid someone will start generating those non-conformant images and claim, that they are conformant since FreeBSD reads them? Ridiculous... > I don't see why our jpeg library should differ from the same libraries > on the number of platforms out there. Well, certainly, you don't mind our entire OS being different... Lots of ports (including JPEG) have feature-adding and/or bug-fixing patches thus becoming different. Why is it Ok for us to have a more secure TCL (mkstemp()), for example, but not more accepting libjpeg? > If you really think that this patch should go into FreeBSD libjpeg - > try to convice JPEG folks instead. A number of patches were placed into hundreds of different ports while ALSO being submitted to the vendors, who may choose to ignore, accept, or reject them. I myself did this for the JPEG port itself (patch-ad and -ae), although JPEG people did not want it, since setlocale() did not seem sufficiently universal for them. If ports maintainers feel like it is a good idea, the patch stays. So far, there are at least two maintainers, who think it is, and one, who does not... -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200112290652.fBT6qBf42452>