libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo

[Clemens Lang]

Hi,

----- On 20 May, 2015, at 09:46, René J.V. Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com 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