On 05/06/2011 12:05 AM, Paul Hartman wrote: > Doesn't Netpbm satisfy your criteria? It's the very first program on > the list of "good" software in that web page.
I have a had a closer look at netpbm's pamscale now. pamscale doesn't support PNG input out of the box: "pamscale: bad magic number 0x8950 - not a PAM, PPM, PGM, or PBM file" So to let pamscale operate on my PNG it seems I would need to run this # pngtopam in.png > in.pam # pamscale [..] in.pam > out.pam # pamtopnm out.pam > out.pnm # pnmtopng out.pnm > out.png I haven't checked yet if that preserves transparency. While there is a tool pamrgbatopng shipped with netpbm it didn't like my out.pam produced above: "pamrgbatopng: PAM must have depth at least 4 (red, green, blue, alpha). This one has depth 3" Interestingly netpbm tools point to a respective man page when run with --help, which points to a man-like website with the real content. So it seems without internet the tool is effectively unusable. Great. I'm also not sure if I really want to add 300 binary files from a single package: # equery f media-libs/netpbm | grep '^/usr/bin' | wc -l 331 Best, Sebastian
