On Saturday 22 February 2014 10:33:44 Alex Merry wrote: > On 22/02/14 09:11, David Faure wrote: > > On Friday 21 February 2014 16:33:29 Hrvoje Senjan wrote: > >>> On Feb. 20, 2014, 12:56 p.m., Commit Hook wrote: > >>>> This review has been submitted with commit > >>>> 4fbbc75429597dc545ae8af24e870d9bac5f2f2a by Alex Merry to branch > >>>> master. > >> > >> Seems Qt 5.3 will have it's own webp plugin (commit > >> 4522b350e53471c2ebc6d4692736ee4708445b66 in stable branch)... > > > > Hmm, interesting. Do we need to have our own then? Does it do anything > > better? > Our plugin does a little extra work in that it doesn't include an alpha > channel in the QImage if there isn't one in the WebP data when reading, > and vice versa when writing. > > OTOH, our plugin's writing appears to be broken. It also doesn't set > the "lossless" option ever, while Qt's plugin does. > > Other than that, they're identical (unsurprising, since they both use > the reference libwebp). So I would say that it's not worth keeping our > own once we depend on Qt 5.3. The question is: do we want it for Qt 5.2 > systems, or do we just say "if you want WebP, upgrade to Qt 5.3"?
Keeping ours sounds to me like extra trouble for not much gain (at some point both will be available, until we remove it), but I'm happy with any solution you guys decide upon. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5 _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
