Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:28:32 +0000 (UTC) From: "Leonard K." <kellyzg@hotmail.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: <ghost@aladdin.com>, <ports@freebsd.org>, <andreas@freebsd.org>, <raph@artofcode.com>, <jseger@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GhostScript and JPEG Message-ID: <20010515172345.Q4904-100000@panda.pearlview.com> In-Reply-To: <200105151458.f4FEwrt62595@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > Ok, this is an argument to keep C_MAX_BLOCKS_IN_MCU at 10, but to bump > up the D_... to 64. Any objections to me applying this change to the > jpeg port? (JSeger seems to be off-line for months :( ) Then the > ghostscript ports can be modified to the shared jpeg library. Just out of curiosity: if we bump the jpeg library's 'max block' to 64, and I use the library to write a new jpeg file (using maybe xv), would the new file be sometimes non-standard-compliant and thus be rejected by some viewers ? (I guess what I mean to ask, is that whether the few arrays affected are only used during decoding, or if they're used during encoding as well.) If so, then in my humble opinion I think we need to keep jpeg library the way it is, and let ghostscript fend for itself. - LK 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?20010515172345.Q4904-100000>