After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 333278 - gdk-pixbuf does not support netpbm pam format
gdk-pixbuf does not support netpbm pam format
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: gdk-pixbuf
Classification: Platform
Component: loaders
git master
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: gdk-pixbuf-maint
gdk-pixbuf-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-03-03 17:33 UTC by Matthias Clasen
Modified: 2018-05-22 13:04 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Matthias Clasen 2006-03-03 17:33:26 UTC
this format appeared in netpbm at some point, and is
a generalization of the pnm family of formats.

It is a raw format with a slightly different header, 
and supports B/W, grayscale, rgb, all with and without 
alpha.

It is probably not very important, but might be a nice
excercise for a rainy day to make io-pnm.c support this.
Comment 1 Luis Menina 2008-02-21 00:50:20 UTC
I'd like to implement saving to pnm formats, so I may implement pam at the same time. Is there a reason why the pixbuf-loader doesn't rely on the netpbm library ?  Is that because the format is considered simple enough to prefer reimplementation over adding another dependency ?
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2008-02-21 01:32:21 UTC
I assume one reason was to support incremental loading; not sure if netpbm would support that.
Comment 3 Luis Menina 2008-04-03 14:27:29 UTC
As it seems PAM does everything PBM/PGM/PPM do, I'll implement only PAM saving.

Would an intrusive patch adding PAM load+save be accepted, or should I split this in two patches, one for PAM loading support, the other for PAM saving ? 

Also, is there some doc available on implementing new pixbuf loaders, or should I guess what is needed from the code ?
Comment 4 Matthias Clasen 2008-04-03 14:36:29 UTC
I think it would be best to implement a new pam loader, then we can phase out the old pnm loader when the new one is ready.
Comment 5 Luis Menina 2008-04-04 14:13:55 UTC
Hum... If I understand you, the new loader would load/save PAM only. By doing that PBM/PGM/PPM won't be able to read their data anymore (unless they convert their data to PNM, using the netpbm tools, of course). This will be seen as a regression by these users. Can't both loaders co-exist?
Comment 6 Matthias Clasen 2008-04-04 18:04:37 UTC
yeah, they can coexist. I had assumed that the new loader would eventually be able to load pbm/pgm/ppm too. If that is not the case, we can keep the old one around.
Comment 7 Luis Menina 2008-04-05 00:55:09 UTC
I'm not sure I understand what you mean... If the new loader should support pam/pbm/pgm/ppm loading and pam saving, why do you think it's better to implement a new loader, instead of just patching the current one to add the missing features?
Comment 8 Luis Menina 2009-11-30 21:31:22 UTC
Is there an existing MIME format for PAM ? I've googled but found nothing...
Comment 9 GNOME Infrastructure Team 2018-05-22 13:04:20 UTC
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to GNOME's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdk-pixbuf/issues/8.