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>