Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-30 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/19/12 6:42 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> a) changing the virtual/jpeg dependency to>=libjpeg-turbo-... > > will be done soon as 1.2.0 is released and stabilized, i'd like to skip > 1.1.90 Sounds good to me. > a) is fine, preventing any downgrades. a fatal check, like glibc and > qt4 has t

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/19/2012 07:16 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: On 1/19/12 6:02 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 01/19/2012 06:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: that doesn't help. the libjpeg turbo peeps themselves have said they don't guarantee compatibility across their own versions. it's forward compatible, w

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/19/12 6:02 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/19/2012 06:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> that doesn't help. the libjpeg turbo peeps themselves have said they >> don't >> guarantee compatibility across their own versions. > > it's forward compatible, which is all we should care about Just a

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/19/2012 06:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 19 January 2012 04:35:43 Samuli Suominen wrote: On 01/19/2012 11:19 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: While dealing with I started discussing with developers working on libjpeg-turbo support

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 19 January 2012 04:35:43 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/19/2012 11:19 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > While dealing with I > > started discussing with developers working on libjpeg-turbo support in > > WebKit, and I learned that despit

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/19/12 10:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hmm, does this mean the ABI differs on runtime compilation options? No, at least I'm not aware of such a thing. I'd sum it up as "libjpeg-turbo is not binary-compatible with libjpeg and also with a different version of itself, and is not supposed to be".

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:19:27 +0100 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > While dealing with I > started discussing with developers working on libjpeg-turbo support in > WebKit, and I learned that despite >

Re: [gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/19/2012 11:19 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: While dealing with I started discussing with developers working on libjpeg-turbo support in WebKit, and I learned that despite

[gentoo-dev] doubtful about libjpeg-turbo vs. libjpeg binary compatibility

2012-01-19 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
While dealing with I started discussing with developers working on libjpeg-turbo support in WebKit, and I learned that despite libjpeg-turbo is not necessarily binary co