On Thursday 19 January 2012 04:35:43 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/19/2012 11:19 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > While dealing with<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393471> I > > started discussing with developers working on libjpeg-turbo support in > > WebKit, and I learned that despite > > <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e67bedf25dd178ec09a325a1220724 > > e6.xml> libjpeg-turbo is not necessarily binary compatible with libjpeg, > > and even with different versions of itself. > > > > Here's why. See > > <http://libjpeg-turbo.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/libjpeg-turbo/trunk/libj > > peg.txt?revision=299&view=markup> and search for "as a shared library". > > I'll paste the relevant quote here > > > > anyway: > >> While you can build the JPEG library as a shared library if the whim > >> strikes you, we don't really recommend it. The trouble with shared > >> libraries is that at some point you'll probably try to substitute a new > >> version of the library without recompiling the calling applications. > >> That generally doesn't work because the parameter struct declarations > >> usually change with each new version. In other words, the library's > >> API is *not* guaranteed binary compatible across versions; we only try > >> to ensure source-code compatibility. > > > > The particular problem with www-client/chromium is caused by > > <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/101286/trunk/Source/WebCore/platform/im > > age-decoders/jpeg/JPEGImageDecoder.cpp> which sort of "hardcodes" in the > > compiled binary whether it was compiled against libjpeg-turbo with > > swizzle support (whatever that is) or not. > > > > The real problem here is that with above "no guarantee" of binary > > compatibility such a solution may be considered legitimate, especially > > that for e.g. Google Chrome the bundled copy of libjpeg-turbo is always > > used. > > > > What do you guys think we should do with this on the Gentoo side?At > > always use system libraries
that doesn't help. the libjpeg turbo peeps themselves have said they don't guarantee compatibility across their own versions. > and i'm in process of dropping keywording > from media-libs/jpeg wrt[1] since we have no need for source slot of it err, no. libjpeg-turbo doesn't provide the older SONAME's like jpeg does. those SLOT's aren't going anywhere (SLOT!=0). history has shown that the canonical version stays around while the derivatives come and go. so until the seemingly braindead ABI policies of libjpeg-turbo can get sorted out, i don't think we can drop KEYWORDS on SLOT=0 jpeg. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
