LibTiff Mailing List
TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
October 2000
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Previous by Thread
Next by Thread
Previous by Date
Next by Date
Contact
The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems
Thread
2000.10.12 15:49 "libtiff-lzw", by Frank Warmerdam
Mike, Stanislav has submitted some bug patches (or perhaps resubmitted is more accurate), one of which relates to the lzw support. I have put this into bugzilla as: http://bugzilla.remotesensing.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16 His patches are reasonable, but I am wondering if we should take a slightly different approach. o First, why is tif_lzw still in the default distribution? It seems that the default distribution should include no LZW implementation code if we are going to offer a whole patch kit for LZW support. o Why are the changes to tif_dir.c not implemented within the core distribution based on whether LZW support is enabled, instead of applied via wholesale replacement of tif_dir.c? One problem is that tif_dir.c in the LZW kit isn't being kept up to date when I make changes to the other one. o The managle-src.sh script seems to apply patches related to removing warnings and stuff. Shouldn't this be just controlled within the original source by the macro indicating if LZW support is available? What I would like to see is the patch just installing a full tif_lzw.c implementation, and perhaps updating tiffconf.h to enable LZW. I think the default distribution should contain a tif_lzw.c, but that is empty so we don't have to change the makefiles when applying the patch. Everything else LZW related should be driven off the LZW_SUPPORT macro from tiffconf.h. If a user enable LZW by turning on this flag, but doesn't apply the tif_lzw.c patch then at link time they would get a TIFFInitLZW() missing link error. I feel these changes would: o Remove LZW liability for anyone working with the default kit since the LZW code isn't even physically present. o Make maintenance easier, since there would be no code duplication. o Make it clearer at build time whether LZW is actually enabled or not. I can't remember too much about our discussions when you originally implemented the LZW patches, but I fear I am contradicting some of my advice at the time. In any event, I am willing to apply the suggested changes if you and other agree. Best regards, ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerda@home.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://members.home.com/warmerda and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent