Bug#149197: [peter@eiserloh.org: SVGALib gl_expandcharacter() with 3 bytes per pixel]

2002-06-06 Thread Colin Watson
Package: svgalibg1
Severity: normal

I received this message; it should probably be filed as a bug.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Forwarded message from "Peter P. Eiserloh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:17:34 -0700
From: "Peter P. Eiserloh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Matan Ziv-Av <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SVGALib gl_expandcharacter() with 3 bytes per pixel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Operating-System: Linux eyes1.eiserloh.org 2.4.18 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20

Hi Guy,

I was reading the source code to svgalib-1.4.3, specifically
the handing of text and fonts, when I noticed in routine
gl_expandcharacter() that the background color is handled
differently than expected when there are 3 bytes per pixel.

IMHO: The third byte should get the third byte of bg, rather
that the first (especially since everywhere else that is what
is done).

The code reads:

  case 3:
*(ushort *) bitmap = bg;
*(bitmap + 2) = bg;
bitmap += 3;
break;

I think it should be (minus the extra comment of course):

  case 3:
*(ushort *) bitmap = bg;
*(bitmap + 2) = bg >> 16;
/*^^ */
bitmap += 3;
break;



-- 
+..+
| Peter P. Eiserlohhttp://www.eiserloh.org |
| Eiserloh Enterprises  http://www.eiserloh.org/~peter |
|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Linux, Modula-2/3, Compilers, Data Reduction, Esperanto, |
| Physics, Science Fiction, Babylon-5, Taekwondo, Geneaology   |
+..+

- End forwarded message -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Test packages of XForms V1.0 Release Candidate 4 available

2002-06-06 Thread Peter S Galbraith
I have test Debian packages of the LGPLed libforms1 (Version 1.0-0.RC4.1)
up at:

  http://people.debian.org/~psg/xforms/

which is apt-get'able using:

  deb http://people.debian.org/~psg/xforms ./

in /etc/apt/sources.list

(A few days ago, I put a version -1 up there by accident, so those of
you that grabbed it now have to manually downgrade.  Sorry.)

Don't upload packages built against these packages.  They won't be
uploaded to Debian before V1.0 is final, and they may change.

There are a few issues you guys can help me with:

1- I currently still install in /usr/X11R6/lib and /usr/X11R6/include/X11 
   and that's legal since it's a xmkmf configured package.  But I could
   install as /usr/lib/libforms.so and /usr/include/forms.h instead.

   Any opinions?

2- I have patched the libforms1 package to dynamically link it against
   libXpm and libjpeg, but XForms authors don't do that.  If I go along
   with upstream, your packages will have to link against these libraries
   instead.

   If I build it with my patch, I get a library like so:

   $ ldd libforms.so.1.0 
   libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x2ab53000)
   libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x2ac7)
   libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0x2ac9)
   /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x5000)

   If I build it without patching, I get:

   $ ldd libforms.so.1.0 
   libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x2ab53000)
   /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x5000)

   There are no refs to Xpm or jpeg, but then building an app that
   doesn't itself use Xpm leads to the following error if I don't edit
   my Makefile:

[...]
cc -o xcolmix.new xcolmix.o callbacks.o initforms.o makecolor.o \
 usage.o design.o loadlookupbrowser.o  -lforms -lX11 -lm -L /usr/X11R6/lib
/usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so: undefined reference to `XpmCreatePixmapFromData
/usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so: undefined reference to `XpmFreeAttributes'
/usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so: undefined reference to `XpmAttributesSize'
/usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so: undefined reference to `XpmReadFileToPixmap'
/usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so: undefined reference to `XpmLibraryVersion'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

   Note that this package doesn't use Xpm directly, but only through
   XForms.

   I'm not an expert about this issue, so I'm soliciting your opinion.
   Any advice?  Keep patching or go along with upstream?  (Presumably
   your upstream authors will adjust to the new XForms scheme of not
   linking the library to Xpm.)

Thanks,
Peter


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]