From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:44:23 +0200 From: Michael Shigorin To: devel@lists.altlinux.org Message-ID: <20130118194423.GD21896@osdn.org.ua> Mail-Followup-To: devel@lists.altlinux.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: [devel] Fwd: Re: IJG libjpeg vs libjpeg-turbo X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:44:30 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: С праздником! До кучи к предыдущим (и вроде как безрезультатным) обсуждениям libjpeg*: ----- Forwarded message from Jakub Bogusz ----- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:41:29 +0100 From: Jakub Bogusz To: "PLD: Developers list (English)" Subject: Re: IJG libjpeg vs libjpeg-turbo On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 04:39:11PM +0100, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 15:55:55 +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > One solution could be to ship libjpeg-turbo as libjpeg.so.6 (or even > > libjpeg.so.8, doesn't matter much) with development libjpeg.so symlink > > (so by default we get SIMD-accelerated basic JPEG support) and ship > > libjpeg 9 (as libjpeg.so.9) with different development symlink > > (libjpeg9.so or maybe libjpeg-ijg.so). > > +1 (turbo as libjpeg.so.8) > > Assuming linked rationale is valid, libjpeg8c+ might be not widely required: > > "Most of the recent IJG changes (post > jpeg-8b) have been related to lossless JPEG encoding or SmartScale. > Best case, SmartScale is a new format that has not been adopted as a > standard yet and is not widely used, and worst case, it may be a mostly > useless extension. The IJG's method for generating lossless JPEG files > using SmartScale is interesting, but I struggle to think of a reason why > one would want to use SmartScale for any other purpose" > > > Disadvantages: > > - it needs identification of packages relying on libjpeg 7+ > > functionality and patching them to link with -ljpeg9 > > - why 7+? Quoting original post: "Anyhow, until/unless there is community support behind SmartScale, it is unlikely that it will ever be adopted in libjpeg-turbo (I don't have any need for it in my own work, so it would pretty much have to be a funded development sort of deal.) Thus, the implementation of the libjpeg v7+ API and ABI would remain just that: an emulation and not a feature-complete implementation of jpeg-7 or jpeg-8." > - are there any apps like this? I'm not sure, it needs checking. Also, I don't know if libjpeg-turbo supports compilation as 12-bit. libtiff can use both 8- and 12-bit variants of libjpeg (both formats can be embedded in TIFF). Should we use 8-bit libjpeg-turbo and 12-bit IJG libjpeg? -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en/lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ----- End forwarded message ----- Начало треда: http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/2013-January/023397.html -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/