I think this might be a good move, since the libjpeg-turbo maintainer still wants to keep compatibility with libjpeg7/8, and he doesn't want to implement incompatible changes, which might be introduced when coding Jpeg2000 or JpegXR.
And if there's and consensus in the community that libjpeg-turbo is way to go, he might be brave and implement the real standards codified by the Joint Photographic Experts Group, which would be something I consider good (adhere to standard for interoperability). See: http://sourceforge.net/p/libjpeg-turbo/discussion/1086868/thread/40a03431/ http://sourceforge.net/p/libjpeg-turbo/feature-requests/4/ O. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> wrote: > On Apr 25, Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > >> Please no. If libjpeg-turbo is the saner implementation, which reading >> through the messages posted so far it seems like, let's switch to it fully. > Agreed. > > -- > ciao, > Marco -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljhhg8ws6nbbz2ufig+4uy9bpmg5ms7epfjpydqpkaqkad...@mail.gmail.com
