Shared graphics libs & header file locations...
In message <[🔎] Pine.A32.3.91.960422142250.19572E-100000@corvus.ece.utexas.edu>, Guy Maor writes:
>The description for libgr reads:
> libjpeg (jpeg)
This already exists, though it's not structured in "the correct
way"---of course, I think this is because it was created before "the
correct way" got pinned down. I'd be willing to repackage it, unless
the current maintainer wants to do it.
> lipbm (pbm, pgm, ppm, pnm)
I personally have no burning desire to go walking on the coals that
are the pbm packages. However, I seem to remember someone stating
that they were intending to repackage one or the other, so it might be
sensible to create the new package in such a way as to make these
shared libraries available.
> libtiff (tiff)
This would need to be done fresh. As I get the impression that it's
pretty stable, I'd be willing to do it.
> zlib
> libpng (png)
Done.
> ??? (fbm, rle)
>I'm not sure what those last 2 are. I assume rle means Run Length
>Encoding, but I've never heard of those graphics formats.
I've not heard of them either. We might could just leave them alone
for the time being.
>One final question - should we install all the headers in
>/usr/include/gr (or something like that), or should we have each
>package have its own directory under include?
Well, I've just had zlib and libpng dumping the headers in
/usr/include---there are only two headers apiece, so I don't know that
it's a big deal.
Last time we had a discussion like this (pbm, I think) I seem to
remember that the general feeling was that special subdirectories
should be deprecated, but that special exceptions could be made given
sufficient evidence of benefit.
Anyone want to convince Bruce and/or Ian J. that graphics headers
warrant their own subdirectory?
Mike.
--
"Don't let me make you unhappy by failing to be contrary enough...."
Reply to: