On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 10:35:51 -0600 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll change the patch from optional to recommended in libpng. As a general rule, shouldn't each application page list/mention any and all special patches/functionality that an application specifically needs? For example, suppose, heaven forbid, Firefox ever needed half a dozen different special library patches. Ditto for GNUcash or some such. Anything special an application needs that deviates from the "standard" build should be noted on that application's page to document them in a single place (most relevant to them) otherwise we might have to look through the entire BLFS library pages to find every "way back" option we need. I myself have always applied the png animation patch because I didn't see any reason why *not* to. But, if I hadn't done so it might have been a real head scratcher when I got to Firefox. On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 07:39:09 -0600 rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote: > However, if Firefox is compiled after building BLFS it seems > the optional patch could be missed as gtk/gdk-pixbuf/libpng > were compiled without Firefox in mind. For the record, what exactly happens if we miss doing this patch and try to build Firefox using system libpng anyway? e.g., do we get a compile error, runtime fault, or does Firefox simply not render PNG animations? Does anyone know if any other applications also rely on this animation patch for libpng? Kind of a bad spot to be in to depend on functionality that the libpng developers won't accept into the mainstream. AFAIK, the argument was that the libpng folks want the mng media type to handle all animation stuff, but the Firefox folks thought that was an overkill and that png should at least be able to do everything gif does. Thank goodness situations like this are not very common. Cheers, Mike -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
