2010/11/7 Pavol Rusnak <prusnak@opensuse.org>:
On 07/11/10 15:40, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
2010/11/7 Pavol Rusnak<prusnak@opensuse.org>:
On 07/11/10 13:53, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 04/11/10 19:46, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
There are other good reasons to use libjpeg-turbo, namely the 2-4X speed (also battery) improvement.
I can prepare the package, push it to factory, obsolete and remove all existing ones, this is not a problem. Problem is we have to evaluate possible breakages, so I won't do it before I get GREEN from our openSUSE Release Team (coolo atm).
JFYI: I prepared the newest libjpeg-turbo package in home:prusnak repo. The spec is adapted from Fedora Rawhide, but I changed it accordingly to our shared library policy and added (hopefully correct) Obsoletes and Provides.
That "libjpeg62 obsoletes and provides libjpeg8" is probably wrong? Shouldn't it obsolete/provide libjpeg6?
Right, we have libjpeg8 in 11.3, but we should also take care of older libjpeg6. Fixed.
I was trying to say that the libjpeg8 one should be removed. The new package does not have a library with soname "libjpeg.so.8", so doesn't "provide" what libjpeg8 provided. If someone happens to have installed a non-rpmed binary that links against libjpeg.so.8, when he updates to openSUSE 11.4 its libjpeg8 package will be removed (updated) and the binary will stop to work. Also, I just saw this: http://libjpeg-turbo.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/libjpeg-turbo?view=revision&revision=236 Right now we need libjpeg-turbo for libjpeg v6 compatibility but also the original libjpeg for v8. But it seems the next version of libjpeg-turbo will be able to build libjpeg v6, v7 and v8 binary compatible libraries. So if that's what we want, we can get rid of the original libjpeg totally (supposing it's ready for 11.4). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org