Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:58:40 +0100 From: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdelibs4 Makefile Message-ID: <4EF988C0.2010808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111225163848.GA51484@FreeBSD.org> References: <201112241839.pBOIdPlh024053@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111225154525.GA43948@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo839VJRebasTHAb-C8w7G68u2D%2BZHSqwg0f6LoQH8D_0bTg@mail.gmail.com> <20111225163848.GA51484@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexey Dokuchaev ha scritto: > Per libungif's pkg-descr, it's not just being unencumbered by patents, but > also "implements a superset of that [giflib's] library's API". It's a superset because it doesn't implement the LZW patented compression. > Regardless > of the possible API and patent issues, what makes libgif a 'preferred' > solution? The fact that they shared the same codebase and now only giflib is developed (and has also LZW compression). > I see it this way: if 100% of ports can be happy with "official" libgif, let > is be so (ditto for libungif). I agree with you here. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/graphics/libungif/Makefile.diff?r1=1.46;r2=1.47;f=h -- Alex Dupre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EF988C0.2010808>