libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Sunday May 24 2015 23:14:31 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:

>- libjpeg upstream seems to be willing to break compatibility
>  frequently, for the sake of making changes of questionable utility.
>
>The former could get us better performance and improved stability. To
>ensure that stability with the latter, we'd have to freeze it at an old
>version forever.

I don't recall having seen anything about libjpeg and forward compatibility. It's not surprising that libjpeg.9.dylib cannot be replaced by libjpeg.8.dylib, but what about the other way around? (Concretely, what happens with applications built against libjpeg.8.dylib when that library becomes a symlink to  libjpeg.9.dylib?)

Also, until now IJG's updates from 6 to 7 to 8 have been followed by libjpeg-turbo (and mozjpeg). It's only now that a halt has been called to that, so it's a little early to conclude that IJG will continue to evolve to 10 and beyond without a change in approach... Surely they must have realised too that their installation share on Linux has dwindled and that they'll have to adapt if they want to do meaningful development in the future.

R.