-
2024.02.03 15:20 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Even Rouault
-
2024.02.03 16:15 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2024.02.03 16:31 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Miguel Medalha
-
2024.02.03 23:21 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Patrice Fournier
- 2024.02.03 23:36 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Paul Hemmer
- 2024.02.04 13:59 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2024.02.04 14:48 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2024.02.03 16:15 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2024.02.07 03:15 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Edward Lam
- 2024.03.15 18:34 "Re: [Tiff] libtiff | tiffcrop produces wrong output when 'raw' and 'rgb' parameters are used with jpeg compression (parameters have reverse effect) (#228)", by Miguel Medalha
- 2024.04.09 15:49 "[Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Michael Vetter
2024.02.04 14:16 "Re: [Tiff] www.libtiff.org is restored", by Bob Friesenhahn
If the utilities are again maintained by the libtiff project, they need to be in a separate repository, with its own build process, and released distinctly from libtiff. If this approach is not acceptable to libtiff maintainers, then the tools would need to be hosted elsewhere.
Agree, maybe even create a project per tool?
Keep in mind that each new project creates an additional package to be separately maintained for OS distributions. This is potentially more burden.
Common things such as a build/test infrastructure would need to be duplicated, and duplication is not a good thing.
Bob
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Public Key, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/public-key.txt