|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. |
1
2
|
LBM files? drop support ? |
A J
Member #3,025
December 2002
|
LBM support, does anyone actually use this ? ___________________________ |
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
|
Jpeg = license issues which clash with Allegro's. |
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
|
RP: not quite.. more like: Jpeg = patent issues. would also increase code size. Though I do have an idea for a PNG work around. Allegro could ship with both the latest zlib and libpng sources. For Unix, a configure check would enable/disable building zlib and libpng libraries. For Windows, it would compile them and would be optionally installed (in case the user already has them). Would be nice if there was a command-line way in Windows to check if one DLL/lib is newer than another, though. That way the make install target could check and install as needed. It would all be completely transparent to the user. -- |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
I don't think anyone uses LBM's, not anymore certainly (I think I only had a need to be able to read them once, a long time ago). As for removing it, the policy is that it doesn't really hurt anyone that it's still there, so just leave it. As for supporting other formats, most notable PNG and JPEG, there are already good addons that do this. For licensing reasons, it's difficult to include these in Allegro. As for gif files, there are good addons for loading these too, and I think the general consensus is that adding PNG support by default would be more useful. |
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
|
Quote: For licensing reasons, it's difficult to include these in Allegro. zlib and libpng doesn't really have any licensing issues: http://awiki.tomasu.com/bin/view/Main/LicenceZlib. The licence is practically Allegro's. Regardless, all you'd have to do is package libpng and zlib, unaltered, with Allegro, and Allegro can use them as-is without any issues. They're not (L)GPL so linking with them, explicitly or not, incurrs nothing on Allegro. -- |
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
I second the motion suggested by Kitty Cat to include PNG support in Allegro's core, as well as his suggested method for doing so. It's one I've suggested myself on occasion. -- |
Oscar Giner
Member #2,207
April 2002
|
I third it. Currently PNG is the only image format I use: great lossless compression, support for palette or true color, alpha channel Quote: For Windows, it would compile them and would be optionally installed (in case the user already has them). Would be nice if there was a command-line way in Windows to check if one DLL/lib is newer than another, though. In Windows I would static link them, but that's just my opinion (I don't like to see a lot of dll's in my game's folder) -- |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
And I, err, fourth it -- |
spellcaster
Member #1,493
September 2001
|
Couldn't agree more... that means I five it. -- |
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
|
Quote: The only thing is that we'll probably have to devote 50% of all Allegro.cc posts to explaining how to make and install zlib and libpng Allegro's makefile could handle that, too.. it can invoke the proper zlib and libpng makefiles when needed. -- |
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
DO IT!!!! Oh is it possible to not detect file type by extension but rather by header, this is the Linux way anyway, windows would just use the extension, but it would certianly be more secure/correct. ___________________________________ |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
... why? [EDIT] -- |
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
Meh just a suggestion ___________________________________ |
Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003
|
LBM == Lossless Bitmap? If Allegro had PNG support, I would certainly use it. Though, things are fine to me the way they are. However, the #1 advantage to adding this functionality would be in making Allegro more attractive to new users. PNG support looks good on paper. Of course, it also makes a perfect add-on, but sometimes it seems everything makes a perfect add-on... |
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
And this is such a perfect add-on I say it deserves to be in the core. It makes more sense than having LBM support, for one thing. We already have TGA - why not also use PNG that's superior in more or less every way? -- |
Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003
|
checks manual Oh, LBM is that fourth image format! Hahaha. I guess that goes to show... As for dropping support, though, that wouldn't be good. It's nice to know that it's there and can be used. Issues like this make AllegroPro's tier system appealing. There would be no debate of add-on vs. core. |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Quote: And this is such a perfect add-on I say it deserves to be in the core. It makes more sense than having LBM support, for one thing. Aye, I don't think anyone will argue against that point. Having PNG support in the library by default would be extremely useful. Personally, I don't like the idea of including zlib and libpng in the Allegro source tree. Think about it: you'd have to make sure they are kept up to dat, you need to make sure they build correctly on all supported systems and compilers. What to do about people who already have the libraries? Do you force them to download it? What if you make it an optional download (provided there's an easy way to do something functionally similar to `./configure' in Windows) and someone compiles a program that assumes Allegro was compiled with PNG support and someone tries to run the program with a DLL that was build without it (ok, so the official DLL should include it, but people do silly things)? What would be ideal, in my opinion, is the already proposed idea of a `standard plugin': you download the allegro source and whatever plugins you want for it, and it all gets compiled and installed by one single make instuction. You'd still have to #include <loadpng.h> and call register_png_file_type() manually (which isn't nescessarily a bad thing), but it'd get build and installed by default. |
Radagar
Member #2,768
September 2002
|
LBM? I thought that was like a Left-Button on your Mouse? ------------ |
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Quote: Think about it: you'd have to make sure they are kept up to dat, you need to make sure they build correctly on all supported systems and compilers. What to do about people who already have the libraries? Do you force them to download it? Kitty Cat's idea fixes this part. You ship with Allegro whatever version is up-to-date at point of release; then you add a configure option that lets the user use another version of libz/libpng instead if he chooses to. -- |
Peter Wang
Member #23
April 2000
|
Not to derail this thread, but Angelo and myself have a secret plan to move LBM and FLIC support out of the core (amongst other things). Dunno when it would happen though, but after 4.2. PNG support: I guess it's inevitable, and Chris' method would be okay (sort of like the module loading we do on unix, although I don't like the idea of format support that may or may not be present at runtime). We should not have to ship zlib/libpng sources with Allegro though. EDIT: Sorry, I was thinking of Chris' other idea which involved loading zlib/libpng libraries at runtime.
|
A J
Member #3,025
December 2002
|
im not sure if i was keeping score correctly, but i 6th the motion to add PNG support to the core, and i have mixed feelings about dropping LBM support.. its just bloat that we can do without. ___________________________ |
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
|
my konsole said: $ ll src/lbm.c So, it's approximately 8,192 bytes for LBM aupport. -- |
Gnatinator
Member #2,330
May 2002
|
[editored] .. I would also really like to see some better PNG support for Allegro. LoadPNG is old and broken.
|
Peter Wang
Member #23
April 2000
|
lbm.c is only 297 lines of code, containing one largish but simple function. Insignificant as far as bloat is concerned.
|
Gnatinator
Member #2,330
May 2002
|
Ah there is peter now! Maybe there can be some LoadPNG code merging/updating going on?
|
|
1
2
|