Re: #315371: Optimization of PNG images on the www
Jens Seidel wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:45:06PM +0200, Florian Ludwig wrote:
>
>> Florian Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>> though the report is old the author is right. There is a easy and nice
>>> tool called 'optipng' in sid and testing that should do the job. (I'm
>>> not sure if the attached pics are up to date)
>>>
>>> I hope someone will at least replace the images that are already png's
>>> and close the bug.
>>>
>>> see:
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=315371
>>>
>
> PNG images in the navigation bar were recently removed in favour of CSS.
> But now I see that you refer to other images in Pics and lossless size
> reduction.
>
As i said optipng seems to be a really nice program ;)
>
>
>> I hoped someone would do this but it seems nobody is interested in it.
>>
>
> I am. It looks interesting, I was just not aware of this bug report.
> (I did a similar task for another project recently, but it was necessary
> to first write a patch against ImageMagick so that it accepts my large
> pixmaps and it is able to reduce these :-)
>
>
>> I think there are some more bugs that should be closed but i have no
>>
>
> Most likely. It would be nice if you could check for such bugs and maybe
> also provide patches when necessary.
>
I'll try ;)
>
>> access [i'm not a DD] so i hope someone with access will have a look at
>>
>
> you don't need to be a developer, have you found this information somewhere?
> I remember I thought in the past the same but you can close all bugs you want
> as described in
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing
>
Hm, i didn't know that everybody can close bugs of pseudo-pkgs.
>
>> the following list where i began to collect some informations about bugs
>> that should be easy to close...
>>
>
> Please try to close these yourself if you are *really* sure it's save.
>
First this list and then i'll see what i can do to help.
>
>
>> #324142
>> www.debian.org: Out of date translation not mentioned
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324142
>>
>> Seems to be corrected but not closed.
>>
>
> No! The report is about a missing indication that the page is not up-to-date,
> not about the translations itself!
>
Mot not jet sure i understand it all right.
There is no need for an indication that this translation is not
up-to-date because it is up-to-date.
>
>
>> #263553
>> experimental not described on the release page
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=263553
>>
>> experimental is not a hole distribution so there are no releases and so
>> it shouldn't be one the release page
>> So, move to 'Will Not Fix' ?
>>
>
> Maybe, but since the bug is from our webmaster I suggest not to touch it.
>
The bug report is from the 5th Aug 2004.
Just to leave it open cause it is from our webmaster dont solve it ;)
There are only two options: move the bug to 'Will Not Fix' or change the
description. And i think it wouldn't be a good thing to change the page.
Perhaps some more people could tell us what the think and we'll see what
to do.
The only thing not to do is, just leave it open and wait until the
system crashs, all data loss and the bug is away [I'm sure its a debian
based server so it will not happend]
>
>
>> #302287
>> www.debian.org: Link of dev-ref is broken in japanese html
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=302287
>>
>> It seems so that there is just no Japanese version, so could someone
>> please remove the link [0].
>>
>
> He, this patch affects me :-)
> Forgot about it but it should be reassigned to the proper package.
> If I remember correctly my patch was silently ignored ...
> Currently PS and PDF files for developers-reference are disabled, don't know
> why.
>
So its good that i remembered you ;-)
Whats about the PS and PDF-Files i cant tell you - i just know there is
a dead link that should be removed.
>
>
>> #298759
>> www.debian.org: "Why Debian" page contains paragraph that seems dated
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298759
>>
>> the second sentence of this paragraph at the why debian page [1]:
>> "NT and XP have shown themselves to be very bad also."
>> So also new and "up-to-date" systems are mentioned and so the bug can be
>> closed.
>>
>
> I'm really not the right person to analyse M$ security. But the old Windows 95
> reference should really be removed.
>
> "Windows 95 has essentially no security. NT and XP have shown themselves to be
> very bad also."
>
> Please propose a fix but do not close it.
>
I would remove the hole reference to M$ so I'm not the right person to
write a alternative version, too.
>
>> [0] http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#devref
>> [1] http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian
>>
>
> Jens
>
>
>
greetings,
Florian Ludwig
Reply to: