I told in August 2013 that it seems dead upstream. I have no idea what is the situation today. I was simply hoping that it got better in the last two years and seeing that Debian, a distro very much oriented in stability and server use, using it in Ghostscript it made the impression for me that it improved. Therefore I asked for revisiting this MIR.
If the state of libopenjpeg is still as bad as before it is no problem for me to continue Ghostscript separate from Debian. perhaps also assuming that the Ghostscript upstream developers are more into security and therefore their copy of libopenjpeg in the Ghostscript source is better than the original (see comment #21). Also no one complained about the JPEG2000 support in our Ghostscript (using the openjpeg copy with comes with Ghostscript) and also no security bug reports related to this appeared. This can mean that the built-in openjpeg is "good enough" for Ghostscript and has the vulnerable parts not used or fixed by Ghostscript developers. In addition, JPEG2000 seems an exotic format for me which did not really get adopted, it exists for years and I have owned several digital cameras (including DSLR and mirrorless cameras) since 2001 and they all do classic JPEG and RAW, JPEG2000 never made it into a camera. Where is JPEG2000 actually used? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/711061 Title: [MIR] openjpeg To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjpeg/+bug/711061/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
