[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] package/wpewebkit: bump to version 2.24.1

[Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Adrian, All,

On 2019-05-16 00:15 +0300, Adrian Perez de Castro spake thusly:
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 21:53:34 +0200, "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
> > On 2019-05-15 21:11 +0300, Adrian Perez de Castro spake thusly:
> > Well, as you said previously, what good is a browser without support for
> > one of the most prominent image format on the web?
> > But please note that openjpeg is a JPEG 2000 codec, not a JPEG one.
> > JPEG 2000 is much less used on the web:
> >     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Image_format_support
> > Only Konqueror, Midori, Omniweb, and Safari are said to support it.
> 
> ?and now WebKitGTK, and WPE WebKit :)
> 
> With my WebKit maintainer hat on, let me tell you a short story.

/me sits by the fire and listens carefully to stories from the
trenches... :-)

> We have been forced to add support for JPEG2000 [1] because our user-agent is
> similar to that of Safari (because? our WebKit ports *are* using the same Web
> engine as Safari?there is no point denying it!) and a few sites started over
> a year ago to send JPEG2000 images replies, then a few more, and then some.
> At some point Akamai's Image Manager [2] started serving JPEG2000 images
> transparently: the HTML references an URL ending in ?.png? (for example),
> and Akamai will return a JPEG2000 in the response (with an appropriate
> Content-Type HTTP header, of course). At this point, if we don't support
> JPEG2000, a good chunk of popular websites will just look broken because
> the images returned by popular CDNs or the websites themselves cannot be
> decoded.
> 
> This above is what I meant with ?many websites will silently fail to
> show images without [OpenJPEG support] enabled?.

So, from what you are saying, I understand that support for jpeg 2000
*is* de facto mandatory.

> I hope this helps understand why I am so insistent in having the OpenJPEG
> support enabled unconditionally: preventing that the Web is broken when
> browsing with a WebKit-based browser.

Yes, I understand that. Thanks for the explanations.

> The rationale why we have in the CMake build files in WebKit an ?USE_OPENJPEG?
> build-time option is to disable it when configuring for distributions which
> either a.) do not ship an OpenJPEG package, or b.) ship an old version that
> does not include some new API that WebKit needs (example: Ubuntu LTS).
> Buildroot does not fall into any of the categories above, and therefore I
> would argue that either we use ?select? to depend unconditionally on OpenJPEG,
> or ?imply? to choose it by default while still allowing to deselect it by
> hand.

I would not even give the option to disable it. Given the size of
openjpeg as compared to that of *webkit, there is not even the slightest
reason to make it configurable (IMHO).

> > Also, Thomas, please note that NetSurf does not support it eitther. ;-]
> Then again, NetSurf does not have an user-agent close enough to a WebKit
> one as to be served JPEG2000 images }:-)

That was a partially-private joke with Thomas, as he is keen on removing
netsurf after having lost countless hair trying to fix it. ;-)

> I hope that my little store above might help you change your mind, if
> only a little bit :-)

Yes, I changed my mind, from a conditional to mandatory dependency. ;-)
Sorry, still no imply for me! ;-)

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'