Charles Wilson wrote:
> OK...new plan: jpeg-v7 will be released for cygwin-1.7 only, using
> gcc4/dw2/shared-libgcc only, and will have the name "cygjpeg-7.dll". It
> will NOT have lossless jpeg support.
>
> I'll do this soon.
I've just posted, for 1.7 only, an update for libjpeg to jpeg v7. T
Charles Wilson wrote:
> In that same conversation, there is a lot of mention of the use of
> symbol versioning as the panacea for all possible version conflicts.
> Nobody has seemed to point out that it works only on ELF systems.
This will not be a problem for us forever, I hope :)
cheers,
Dave Korn wrote:
> I was just about to say "We could always try and find a security
> vulnerability, that's the only thing that would cause upstream to update
> libjpeg these days! :) But then I took a look at the new change.log and it's
> actually crammed with new and improved functionality, s
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 28/06/2009 01:17, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Nope. Upstream development is DEAD. There was some flurry of activity
>> about two years ago, but it never went anywhere. If IJG's libjpeg
>> wasn't so widespread and widely used, I'd want to look at some other
>> library t
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 28/06/2009 01:17, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Nope. Upstream development is DEAD. There was some flurry of activity
>> about two years ago, but it never went anywhere. If IJG's libjpeg
>> wasn't so widespread and widely used, I'd want to look at some other
>> library t
On 28/06/2009 01:17, Charles Wilson wrote:
Nope. Upstream development is DEAD. There was some flurry of activity
about two years ago, but it never went anywhere. If IJG's libjpeg
wasn't so widespread and widely used, I'd want to look at some other
library that supports the format...
Actually
On 28/06/2009 01:17, Charles Wilson wrote:
You mean for clients that aren't naughty, and do not/never did access
these "private" fields? None, as far as I can tell. The *size* of the
struct doesn't change. Only the names of some of the fields (not their
type), and their meaning. Some purely in
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 27/06/2009 13:30, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Well, I no longer need to deal with that sort of imagery, and "private"
>> never really was very private, and it DID cause lots of people grief.
>
> Moreso, the patch removed the height_in_blocks/width_in_blocks members
> fro
On 27/06/2009 13:30, Charles Wilson wrote:
Well, I no longer need to deal with that sort of imagery, and "private"
never really was very private, and it DID cause lots of people grief.
Moreso, the patch removed the height_in_blocks/width_in_blocks members
from struct jpeg_component_info, which
For many years -- since the first "net release" after B20.1 in fact --
cygwin's jpeg library has included the so-called "lossless jpeg" patch.
This has been somewhat controversial.
The patch modifies certain data structures that are marked "private" in
the jpeg headers, but they *are* in the head
10 matches
Mail list logo
