Arch Linux

I forgot to enter a summary. "Eric pops a warning when using it regarding libpng".
I have compiled it in my computer in case it was a problem with recent updates and the problem persists.

Hi, thanks for reporting.

This is a very common warning that started showing up after one of the latest libpng upgrades.

Please report this upstream to the eric developers and ask if it is within their control to do something about it (it's not for certain that it is). Include a link to the bug report here.

Thanks.

I have reported it upstream,
http://die-offenbachs.homelinux.org:48888/issues/issue109

This is the answer uptream:
""""""
Detlev Offenbach <detlev@die-offenbachs.de> added the comment:

That is not an eric issue. libpng is used by the underlying Qt system. eric just
feeds it .png files for it's icons.
""""""""

So it seem to be a qt problem. I suggest to close this bug.

Thanks for reporting and investigating! As this seems to be a problem with qt4+libpng, one possible solution would be to submit a feature request to the Eric developers, asking them to upgrade to Qt5. They will probably do this sooner or later, though.

Some PNG files have a broken sRGB profile. Libpng emits this warning whenever it tries to load such a file. If it's just a warning and the file gets loaded, this is not a bug. If the application aborts loading, then you can consider it a bug.

It's common to keep upstream bugs open while posting a link to the upstream bug report, while waiting for the bug to be fixed. I wish to post a link to the upstream bug report here. If this is closed because "upstream", that should be given as the reason instead of "not a bug".

I will make myself clear here, to justify the closure:

1. It is also common to close tasks that have uncertainty upstream. I do not personally keep upstream bugs open unless they're absolutely critical. In such cases I close them as 'Upstream'. Was there any certainty in this case? Did upstream tell us to "wait" until they "fix" anything?

2. We have these warnings everywhere, like you said. I would have selected 'Upstream' if that was more appropriate, but in this case 'Not a bug' was more appropriate, at the time of closure. Why? The answer is here, courtesy of an "upstream" developer:

"That is not an eric issue."

Thanks for the heads-up, though, and I hope this prevents any misunderstanding in the future :) Anyway, re-opened, since you said there are new developments upstream with regards to this issue. Let's see what happens.

Good point about the upstream developer comment. I agree that this is a minor (upstream) issue.