On 12/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think there's a need to require that 'thumbnailing'
> must involve a specific means for storing some standard image format
> somewhere.. one may not want or need to store anything really. There's
> really very little diffe
Build log for Enlightenment DR 0.17 on 2007-12-04 10:19:54 -0800
Build logs are available at http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs
Packages that failed to build:
edvi http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs/edvi.log
engage http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs/engage.log
epdf
On Tuesday 04 December 2007, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 03 December 2007, Vincent Torri wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Saturday 01 December 2007, Vincent Torri wrote:
> I have added a document in the Wiki that
I wrote:
> For jpgs you don't have to worry about it since we only
> deal with rgb images then, hence there's no difference (and no
> premul or un-premul takes place). It does matter for pngs with
> alpha though, and then it's fastest to deal with pngs embedded
> in eet. But I think
Nathan wrote:
> 1. Split thumbnail generation into pluggable processes. If we can
> specify external commands for generating thumbnails, we reduce the
> amount of code necessary to support new formats. This also gives us
> robustness when a dependency mis-behaves and crashes the thumbnail
