Re: Opinions on FreeImage?

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 16:23 +0200, Petr Pytelka wrote:

> FreeImage have also one discutable feature:
> Most common libraries (libjpeg, libtiff..) are part of the library and 
> library is staticly linked against these libraries. It is good because
> library uses only part of the code. This way are application quite 
> stable with ability to control settings of all used libraries (codecs).
> Small disadvantage is that it does not use shared libraries as libjpeg 
> etc. It is of course possible to change it.

As a side point, I'd *strongly* recommend avoiding doing this. image
libraries are security sensitive; if you statically link to them, you
don't pick up security fixes. If you cut-and-paste them into your
distribution you have even more problems picking up security fixes.

(Obviously, Windows, without the idea of a system install of a 3rd party
DLL, makes doing the right thing harder.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]