Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:06:33 -0400 (EDT) From: mi@aldan.algebra.com To: kellyzg@hotmail.com Cc: ghost@aladdin.com, ports@freebsd.org, andreas@freebsd.org, raph@artofcode.com, jseger@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GhostScript and JPEG Message-ID: <200105151806.f4FI6Yr26882@misha.privatelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <20010515172345.Q4904-100000@panda.pearlview.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 May, Leonard K. wrote: > > 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 ? My understanding is, no. To produce a non-compliant jpeg, you need the value of C_MAX_BLOCKS_IN_MCU (Compress) increased. D_MAX_BLOCKS_IN_MCU is for the Decompressor. > 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. No, I think it is safe to bump up D_MAX_BLOCKS_IN_MCU. -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?200105151806.f4FI6Yr26882>