| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:33:03 +0300
|
| 5 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> libjpeg-turbo stabilization is happening for amd64/x86 at |
| 8 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/360715 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> - the gentoo-x86 has been converted to virtual/jpeg to support this. |
| 11 |
> - we have no bugs reported against the package. |
| 12 |
> - libjpeg-turbo is default in virtual/jpeg |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> so just heads up. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Hi everyone,
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Just a user, not a developer, but:
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The third point of this message made me wonder about something. New
|
| 22 |
installs will get libjpeg-turbo, as it's the default. Old users may
|
| 23 |
never know it exists! It seems that making lbjpeg-turbo the default
|
| 24 |
implementation of virtual/jpeg is expressing some small preference in
|
| 25 |
favour of it, but old users will never be presented with the choice to
|
| 26 |
switch. It seems like this is a bit of a gap in package management,
|
| 27 |
that even if a "better" package becomes available and becomes the
|
| 28 |
default implementation of a virtual, existing users will keep using the
|
| 29 |
"worse" package for no other reason than that it's already installed
|
| 30 |
(and there's no message anywhere even telling them that the change
|
| 31 |
happened).
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Does anyone think this is suboptimal and that it might be nice to
|
| 34 |
investigate alternatives?
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Chris
|
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
iEYEARECAAYFAk3nHIkACgkQXUF6hOTGP7ftqwCgho+EhlOnvy1swE7nOE21TcMq
|
| 41 |
wiIAn1Vr9fRZmvRIvyO5vsILWT9XzSxi
|
| 42 |
=GIqk
|
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives