[GRASS5] Re: [GRASS-CVS] CVS update: grass/src/raster/r.tiff

[Glynn Clements]

Markus Neteler wrote:

> In general - do we want to maintain r.in.tiff when r.in.gdal does more
> or less the same (eventually group file handling must be added explicitely
> for RGB, if needed)?

Unlike GDAL, r.in.tiff doesn't require a working C++ compilation
environment. TIFF is probably too important to impose any unnecessary
dependencies. Using tifftopnm -> r.in.p?m isn't adequate, as r.in.p?m
will ignore the .tfw file, and converting indexed (aka colourmapped,
paletted) images to true-colour destroys the underlying structure.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements at virgin.net>