On June 14, 2014 8:52:39 AM EDT, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: >On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:42:00 +0200 >Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> So, having one program that reads some standardized input and >displays >> it on screen, while another program converts any given image file to >> that standardized format may be more UNIX-like. But maybe a file is >not >> the right representation for that standardized format. So maybe the >> converter would need to be a library instead of a program. > >This is a very nice idea. What any image-lib basically does for >internal representation is to load the image as a bitmap. >An image-viewer for bitmaps piped by a converter for the common formats >would be a good idea. > >> So yes, I argue we should rather rewrite imlib, that is, try to >> implement imlib's interface in a suckless way. Unless that is >> impossible, then the "rewrite feh" idea is the only one left. > >imlib2 is more than reading images, it's also a full-fledges >font-rendering-engine and image-compositor. > >I'd look at it this way: Do we really need this much stuff for a simple >image viewer? Wouldn't it be better to just take the stuff we need >(reading images and mapping it to a certain common standard format) and >be fine with it? ;)
Keep in mind that unless your images are always the same resolution as your screen, you're going to need to do things like resize as well.
