APNG patch for graphics/png port
mi+mill at aldan.algebra.com
Mon Dec 22 12:37:42 PST 2008
= 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.
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
The question for us is how to build the ports -- whether to:
* build the libpng as static from the sources, that come with each
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
animated PNG (APNG) content is non-existent anyway -- comes only from
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
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
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
statically into each application, we are making the future security
fixes harder to
propagate -- instead of rebuilding just one port (graphics/png or
the users will need to rebuild all of the applications...
More information about the freebsd-ports