Re: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo
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 libjpeg-turbo should be
using libjpeg-turbo for better performance and compatibility with rest
of the linux distributions.
Which feature in libjpeg9 does anyone want? The ability to make jpeg's
images that nobody else can view?
> I do not see libjpeg-turbo as a suitable replacement. It has
> 1) an different license
Be specific, what do you not like about libjpeg-turbo license? As far as
I see, it is under the exact same license?
> 2) much more security issues in a much smaller timeframe.
Which translates to.. a single CVE in libjpeg-turbo since it's
inception!
> 3) do not implement the full libjpeg8 ABI, nor the upcoming libjpeg9.
This would be a relevant if some application actually used the
"full libjpeg8 ABI" . In fact, 100% of debian works fine with
libjpeg-turbo, or even the original libjpeg6b (if the would be
recompiled against it again).
I find the reason that IJG libjpeg8 fork is so triggerhappy to
repeatedly break the API and ABI (and image format!) rather a reason
to make libjpeg8 the non-default.
You should not deprive debian users from high performance jpeg rendering
for a few ABI features that nobody uses - or anyone is asking for.
Riku
Reply to: