On Monday May 25 2015 12:51:49 Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > So if libjpeg is to be maintained as a 3rd alternative a patch will be > > required to change the compatibility and current version that is stored in > > libjpeg.8.dylib . > > We should not roll back a library's compatibility number. Doing so presumes > that the newer version is backwards-compatible with the older version.
Yet it's what IJG did, going from 13 to 11 - I'm not sure I see an interest in a 3-level check that cannot be avoided by renaming files or symlink wizardry if those versions aren't supposed to be increasing across all version evolution... > It would make more sense to bring libjpeg-turbo up to compatibility version > 13.0.0. That would a(nother) way to do that patch :) R. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
