Hi Anselm, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance/ why this is a very bad idea.
I am not going to apply the patch to the Debian, nor should it be applied upstream. The program violation specification (Digikam) should be fixed instead. Applying robustness principle to work around bad implementation (instead of work around for bad specification) is always wrong. Ondřej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> > On 22 Dec 2019, at 17:39, Anselm Lingnau <ling...@debian.org> wrote: > > Package: libjpeg-turbo-progs > Version: 1:1.5.2-2+b1 > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > Dear Maintainer, > > according to the EXIF standard, the APP1 segment (which contains the EXIF > data) must > occur immediately after the SOI (start of image) marker at the beginning of a > JFIF file. > The jpegexiforient program is built on this assumption, but it turns out that > sometimes this isn't the case (e.g., when Digikam writes JFIF files to be > sent by > e-mail), and jpegexiforient fails to work – it neither outputs the current > orientation > nor is it able to change it. > > Following the robustness principle, jpegexiforient should work even in cases > where > the APP1 segment isn't first in the file, because it makes very little > difference > to the code. I'm attaching a patch that will fix jpegexiforient in this > respect. > > -- System Information: > Debian Release: 10.1 > APT prefers testing > APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') > Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) > Foreign Architectures: i386 > > Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-6-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) > Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE > Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE= > (charmap=UTF-8) > Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash > Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) > LSM: AppArmor: enabled > > Versions of packages libjpeg-turbo-progs depends on: > ii libc6 2.28-10 > ii libjpeg62-turbo 1:1.5.2-2+b1 > ii libturbojpeg0 1:1.5.2-2+b1 > > libjpeg-turbo-progs recommends no packages. > > libjpeg-turbo-progs suggests no packages. > > -- no debconf information > <jpeg-app1.patch>
