Hi, ----- On 20 May, 2015, at 09:46, René J.V. Bertin [email protected] wrote:
> Can anyone confirm those claims? I think it's rather safe to assume the 2nd > claim is true because on my Ubuntu rigs I have the turbo variant installed > instead of the scalar version, and everything seems to work just fine. Most Linux distributions nowadays ship libjpeg-turbo as JPEG library instead of the original libjpeg. It is a drop-in replacement for all but the features released in the latest version of libjpeg, but those features have widely been criticized. > I think I'm going to experiment with rolling port:libjpeg-turbo into a +turbo > variant of port:jpeg and see if I notice any issues. Are there strict rules > against providing a port both as a true standalone port and as a variant to > another port? I know the preferred way of providing alternatives is via a > PortGroup, but given the number of ports that would have to be modified to use > a jpeg portgroup before users can start installing either the one or the other > libjpeg that's not what I like to call a transparent change ... I would rather like to see us drop libjpeg completely and replace it with libjpeg-turbo. Does anybody object to this approach? -- Clemens Lang _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
