Am 24.04.2013 11:23, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
do you have some insight how openjpeg enters this game? apparently some packages
already use openjpeg explicitly to support some jpeg2000 features. There was
some discussion on that in Ubuntu, see https://launchpad.net/bugs/711061.
Matthias
--
To UNS
Hello,
The KDE maintainer in Fedora started an interesting discussion some time
ago in Digikam's mailing list. There was input from the very IJG:
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-devel/2013-January/066206.html
It boils down to "jpeg6-2 is the only important thing. Forget about jpeg8
and jpe
Hi all,
On Do 25 Apr 2013 18:41:40 CEST Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Bill Allombert
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23:04AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi Bill and Debian Developers,
My proposal is:
A. Add libjpeg-turbo to Debian archive (that's easy)
B. Add required
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Bill Allombert
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23:04AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> Hi Bill and Debian Developers,
>>
>> My proposal is:
>> A. Add libjpeg-turbo to Debian archive (that's easy)
>> B. Add required provides/alternatives for libjpeg62-dev and
>> li
[Mathieu Malaterre]
> I do not believe in debian life-span, a package manager ever switch
> an implementation of a package. So libjpeg9 and libjpeg-turbo will
> have to co-live.
It happens. Look at the source for 'libc6'. It used to be glibc,
these days it is a fork called eglibc. Likewise the
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> As IJG libjpeg maintainer, my plan is to move to libjpeg9 which has more
>> feature.
>
> Only the applications that actually want to experiment with libjpeg8/9 ABI
> should be
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As IJG libjpeg maintainer, my plan is to move to libjpeg9 which has more
> feature.
Only the applications that actually want to experiment with libjpeg8/9 ABI
should be using it -
The 100% of current applications that work just l
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:01:50PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Libjpeg-turbo website [3] has all the signs of an healthy open source
> project - A SVN repo with many commiters, bug tracker, a mailing list
> with open discussion etc.
libjpeg-turbo is also used by webkit, blink, and gecko.
Mike
-
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Bill Allombert
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23:04AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> Hi Bill and Debian Developers,
>>
>> My proposal is:
>> A. Add libjpeg-turbo to Debian archive (that's easy)
>> B. Add required provides/alternatives for libjpeg62-dev and
>> li
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> >C. Decide which package should provide default libjpeg-dev library
> Last statement from Bill: libjpeg by IJG
The current IJG has nothing to do with the IJG that originally created JPEG.
The last activity of original IJG was in 19
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23:04AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Hi Bill and Debian Developers,
>
> My proposal is:
> A. Add libjpeg-turbo to Debian archive (that's easy)
> B. Add required provides/alternatives for libjpeg62-dev and
> libjpeg8-dev (where API/ABI match)
> C. Decide which package shou
Hi Ondřej,
I have just uploaded libjpeg-turbo to Debian and it still hovers in NEW [1].
On Mi 24 Apr 2013 11:23:04 CEST Ondřej Surý wrote:
Debian has already open ITP[3] #602034 for libjpeg-turbo, which
support libjpeg62 API/ABI and also some important bits of libjpeg8. As
libjpeg is one of th
Hi Bill and Debian Developers,
while doing work on GD Library 2.1.0 it was discovered there's
encoding incompatibility introduced by libjpeg8/9 [1]. While doing
further research I have found that Fedora has switched to
libjpeg-turbo[2] (for reasoning please read the referred email).
Ubuntu (and St
13 matches
Mail list logo
