[OTS] Add lzma_sdk

[OTS] Add lzma_sdk

This is a prerequiste patch to add woff2 decompression support.
This CL won't change behavior.

BUG=chromium:122603
TEST=compiled

[bashi, 2012-04-09 03:32:17]

Hi Yusuke-san,

I'd like to add lzma_sdk to OTS as a part of adding woff2 decompression support.
Could you take a look? I just copied minimal necessary files from lzma_sdk
version 9.20 and didn't make any changes.

Files to review:
- ots.gyp
- ots-standalone.gyp
- third_party/lzma_sdk/README.ots
- third_party/lzma_sdk/LICENSE
- third_party/lzma_sdk/lzma_sdk.gyp

[Yusuke Sato, 2012-04-09 05:23:28]

lgtm

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/third_party/lzma_sdk/l...
File third_party/lzma_sdk/lzma_sdk.gyp (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/third_party/lzma_sdk/l...
third_party/lzma_sdk/lzma_sdk.gyp:15: '_LZMA_PROB32',
please add a comment which explains why this is necessary.

[Yusuke Sato, 2012-04-09 05:26:17]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/ots.gyp
File ots.gyp (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/ots.gyp#newcode29
ots.gyp:29: # Chromium uses old version of lzma_sdk so we need to have our own
copy.
is it safe to link older and newer versions of the library to chrome?

[bashi, 2012-04-09 07:12:23]

Thank you for your prompt review!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/ots.gyp
File ots.gyp (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/ots.gyp#newcode29
ots.gyp:29: # Chromium uses old version of lzma_sdk so we need to have our own
copy.
On 2012/04/09 05:26:17, Yusuke Sato wrote:
> is it safe to link older and newer versions of the library to chrome?

I overlooked the point. Thank you for pointing this out. Looks like we don't
build chromium's lzma_sdk on Linux and Mac, but we build it on Win (I've been
tested the code on Mac/Linux). As far as I investigated, LzmaDecode is the only 
symbol that is conflict. I'll add a workaround to avoid this conflict.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/third_party/lzma_sdk/l...
File third_party/lzma_sdk/lzma_sdk.gyp (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/diff/1/third_party/lzma_sdk/l...
third_party/lzma_sdk/lzma_sdk.gyp:15: '_LZMA_PROB32',
On 2012/04/09 05:23:29, Yusuke Sato wrote:
> please add a comment which explains why this is necessary.

It is not necessary needed and I just forgot to remove it. Removed.

[bashi, 2012-04-09 07:23:43]

Renamed .c files to .cc and introduced "ots::lzma" namespace. Other than that,
there is no semantics change. lzma_sdk.gyp and README.ots is also updated.

[agl2, 2012-04-09 21:17:54]

Is it not possible to update Chromium's lzma code so that we don't
duplicate it?


Cheers

AGL


On Mon Apr 09 03:23:43 GMT-400 2012, <bashi@chromium.org> wrote:

> Renamed .c files to .cc and introduced "ots::lzma" namespace. Other than
> that,
> there is no semantics change. lzma_sdk.gyp and README.ots is also updated.
>
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10025017/<https://www.google.com/url?s...
>

[bashi, 2012-04-10 00:20:56]

On 2012/04/09 21:17:54, agl2 wrote:
> Is it not possible to update Chromium's lzma code so that we don't
> duplicate it?

Another reason why I'd like to put lzma in OTS's repository is to avoid
introducing dependency. Lzma is indispensable to support woff2 format. If we
depend Chromium's lzma, we can't build OTS without Chromium's repository. This
makes OTS be difficult to use as library outside Chromium (like Firefox).

Anyway, I glanced the Chromium's code and it seems that we can update Chromium's
lzma. If you think duplicating is a bad idea, I try to update Chromium's lzma.

[agl2, 2012-04-10 15:20:35]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:20 PM,  <bashi@chromium.org> wrote:
> Anyway, I glanced the Chromium's code and it seems that we can update
> Chromium's
> lzma. If you think duplicating is a bad idea, I try to update Chromium's
> lzma.

Being able to build OTS without Chromium is certainly very useful.
However, duplicating liblzma in the Chromium binaries is very
undesirable bloat. Hopefully updating Chromium's lzma and a quick gyp
condition means that we can get the best of both worlds.


Cheers

AGL

[bashi, 2012-04-17 21:28:38]

On 2012/04/10 15:20:35, agl2 wrote:
> Being able to build OTS without Chromium is certainly very useful.
> However, duplicating liblzma in the Chromium binaries is very
> undesirable bloat. Hopefully updating Chromium's lzma and a quick gyp
> condition means that we can get the best of both worlds.

I uploaded CL(http://codereview.chromium.org/10114005/) to update Chromium's
lzma. Closing this issue.