libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Friday May 22 2015 22:14:09 Mihai Moldovan wrote:

> 
> Never. The "features" are experimental and the standardization committees are
> not in favor of even adding them.

Those are the current additional features in libjpeg9; they say nothing of libjpeg10+ ...

> We do not have a concept of virtual packages. You are trying to be too smart and
> it will eventually painfully go wrong. For proper support of virtual packages,
> base needs to be extended. Variants are NOT the way to go here. Dependencies on
> variants are NOT supported, not counting the kludge that is enforce_variants.

I think you're either over or under-estimating my smartness. I'm not proposing anything like a variant or a virtual package, simply a package that installs into its own prefix.
(Yes, my draft proposal has a transitional variant, but if you looked at it you looked at it you'll have seen that it's supposed to be just that, transitional.)

R