On May 24, 2015 11:07:37 PM EDT, Mihai Moldovan <io...@macports.org> wrote: >On 25.05.2015 04:52 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On May 24, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >>> >>> Replacing libjpeg with libjpeg-turbo. I think this point is >off-topic, as this discussion is primarily about maintainability and >not performance. >> >> ...I assumed it was also about performance. If we object to changes >IJG is making to jpeg, we can also just stop updating jpeg past 9, or >we can downgrade it to 8. > >For me, it also is. I'm dependent upon a fast JPEG decompressor for >another >application I'm part of upstream. I do not particularly care what the >default >JPEG port is in MacPorts as long as there is a choice for being able to >switch >to libjpeg-turbo (i.e., a path-based dependency), but I very much >prefer >libjpeg-turbo for speed and compatibility reasons (again, Linux >distributions >switched to libjpeg-turbo and a cross-platform application benefits >from the >same toolchain even on the other platforms.) > > > >Mihai > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >macports-users mailing list >macports-users@lists.macosforge.org >https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
The fact that you want the turbo one for comparability speaks volumes. Echoed by other package a man gets doing this should also speak volumes. All the other concerns should be dwarfed by this. If it was a real issue, ALL the world is in trouble. Clearly, this is not the case. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users