David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > On 12 December 2010 21:45, David Sainty <dave%dtsp.co.nz@localhost> wrote: >> Apart from knowing that people (distributions) have been successful in >> relying on ABI compatibility, it does seem like there might be some >> corner cases where that doesn't work. I think libjpeg's API has grown >> new (obscure) features over time, it seems plausible that libjpeg-turbo >> hasn't achieved 100% coverage. In principle anyway... The key question is if libjpeg-turbo people view any binary non-compat as a bug. It seems pretty clear that they should and probably do. > Swapping out shared libraries at runtime rather than compile time makes > me somewhat twitchy :) Sure, but this is something a user could do if they want. If they build source packages, they'll have built binaries against it. > Maybe we run a test bulk build with libjpeg-turbo, test it and if it > works just switch to it by default on i386 & amd64? That (switching normal people to libjpeg-turbo) seems quite a bit scarier.
Description: PGP signature