[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:16:46AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On the other hand, it is also obvious that the libjpeg-turbo upstream does not 
> have a full understanding of the libjpeg code, so we are better off with Guido
> as upstream maintainer.

It's no reason to hold the whole distro back, however.

Perhaps after he figures out he has no more users he'd be more open to
merging the fork back in, and *collaborating* in a productive way.

I'll take an upstream that takes slightly longer to fix a bug and is
open to evolving with the software it uses than a project that
breaks A[P|B]I regularly (from what I read here) any way.

I don't have all the facts, and I only know what I read others saying
about it, but +1 to turbo. Why has this taken so long?

I mean, every other major distro is using -turbo. It can't be that bad.


 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: