On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:28:17AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > After several rounds of fixing overflow and allocation failure issues in
> > various loaders this cycle, I'm reconsidering following the suggestion in
> > https://bugzilla.g
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:28:17AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> After several rounds of fixing overflow and allocation failure issues in
> various loaders this cycle, I'm reconsidering following the suggestion in
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=721372
>
> wbmp, tga, ras, qtif, pc
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 01:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> As for removing those loaders, I'd double-check whether GIMP has
> native
> support for those (not through a gdk-pixbuf loader), so that at least
> some modicum of support is left for those, making it less likely that
> we'll crash when
Thanks for the feedback.
So far, I've dropped wbmp, ras and pcx.
I've left tga because Benjamin has a branch with a rewritten loader
(hopefully more trustwrothy).
I've left qtif because I wasn't sure if this format is important on OS X..
I've left ani because it is an example of adding animation
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 01:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 18:38 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Cosimo Cecchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Owen Taylor
> > > wrote:
> > > > Do we trust this code or not? If n
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> I would argue that at least I have taken care of some of that work at
> the end of 2014. I didn't get to see coverity scans or cppchecks, but
> this isn't the most complicated code to fix up and review.
>
>
Yes, that is true. You have h
On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 18:38 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Cosimo Cecchi
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Owen Taylor
> > wrote:
> > > Do we trust this code or not? If not, we should either a) sandbox
> > > it or b) delete it.
> > >
> > > Mo
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
>> Do we trust this code or not? If not, we should either a) sandbox it or
>> b) delete it.
>>
>> Moving less-trusted loaders into a separate repo is a blame-the-user or
>> blame-the-o
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Do we trust this code or not? If not, we should either a) sandbox it or b)
> delete it.
>
> Moving less-trusted loaders into a separate repo is a blame-the-user or
> blame-the-os-vendor move, depending on who installs them onto the system.
>
Do we trust this code or not? If not, we should either a) sandbox it or b)
delete it.
Moving less-trusted loaders into a separate repo is a blame-the-user or
blame-the-os-vendor move, depending on who installs them onto the system.
- Owen
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> Before doing so, I want to ask if anybody is willing to step up and
> maintain these loaders. Note that even if we drop these from gdk-pixbuf
> itself, they can be maintained out-of-tree... one of the advantages of
> having loaders as mod
After several rounds of fixing overflow and allocation failure issues in
various loaders this cycle, I'm reconsidering following the suggestion in
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=721372
wbmp, tga, ras, qtif, pcx, ani... these are probably prime candidates for
being removed.
Before do
12 matches
Mail list logo
