On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Was there a compelling reason for this reversion? > > Not really. As has already been said, if/when the GDI+ -based pixbuf > loaders would be used, then it would hopefully be 100% clear that it > makes sense to build them as built-in in the gdk-pixbuf DLL. But now > when I was forced to revert to the libgpej and libtiff -based loaders, > there are two more or less equivalent choices, both which have their > disadvatages: either 1) build separate png, jpeg and tiff loaders, > which means there are more files to distribute for people who want to > minimize the number of files in the GTK+ runtime and still be able to > load jpef or tiff files, or 2) build built-in loaders which means the > png, jpeg and tiff DLLs are required even for a GTK+ runtime used in a > situation where it doesn't use any png, jpeg and tiff files. > > Would the best solution be to build the png, jpeg and tiff libraries > as static libraries, and link them statically into gdk-pixbuf?
I don't particularly like the built-in loaders, and statically linking the dependent library doesn't address my concern. There are occasionally security vulnerabilities in these libraries (most recently libpng and libtiff (which is still unpatched)) - I like being able to update the library versions without changing GTK+. It is particularly handy that I can disable the tiff loader via the gdk-pixbuf.loaders file until there is an updated libtiff. -D _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
