libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo

[Daniel J. Luke]

> On May 22, 2015, at 5:33 PM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Those are the current additional features in libjpeg9; they say nothing of libjpeg10+ …

meh.

I don’t really care, but it sounds like it makes sense to switch to libjpeg-turbo (or mozjpeg, or path dependency that defaults to one or the other).

If in the future someone wants/needs new super-awesome features of libjpeg10+, then it can always be added back (and someone can go to the effort of making it not conflict with libjpeg-turbo/mozjpeg or whatever at that point).

Unless or until there’s a compelling need for it, I don’t think it makes sense to spend time thinking about how to accommodate it.

[of course, if you’re looking for things to do, and it’s interesting to you, by all means spend your time making MacPorts better :) ]

--
Daniel J. Luke                                                                   
+========================================================+                        
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |                          
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |                          
+========================================================+                        
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                          
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                          
+========================================================+