Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (929 mails)

[Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger <dimstar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 09:05 +0200, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:28 -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> Do you mean this thread?
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.suse.opensuse.packaging/6475
>
> Seems unclear if the standard libjpeg lib turned out to be the -turbo
> variant. And there is no note in the docs that comes with libjpeg62 to
> say that it is compiled form -turbo sources. Still, I do not seem to see
> an actual libjpeg-turbo.so anywhere. So it mist be the intention that
> the turbo stuff is in /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62.0.0. But who want to
> assume?
>
> So I downloaded the source rpm for libjpeg-turbo and built it. It makes
>
> libjpeg62-62.0.0-6.1.i586.rpm
> libjpeg62-devel-62.0.0-6.1.i586.rpm
> libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1-6.1.i586.rpm
>
>
> So it looks like the 'standard' /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62.0.0 'might' be
> this. The problem is that you get the same name for the RPM and library
> if you build with the standard non-turbo sources. So, following the
> pedigree of libjpeg.so.62.0.0 installed on some system seems rather
> uncertain.

Hi,

The strong point of libjpeg-turbo is that it's an drop-in replacement
for the standard libjpeg. For this to work, obviously, the library name
needs to be equal. As such it's not surprising that both install
libjpeg.so.62.0.0.

If th elib would have a different name, apps would need to be rebuilt
explicitly against libjpeg-turbo.

Hth,
Dominique

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx