libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo

[Jeremy Lavergne]

On May 24, 2015 11:07:37 PM EDT, Mihai Moldovan <ionic at 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 at 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.