I just saw the last call minutes. That API split looks bad. But I have a rather naiive question: why not make the standard require both libraries be present?<br><br>That is what seems to happen in practice on my machines, including back when I had LSB compliant OSes: applications installed one or the other, depending on what features they wanted (to say nothing of JPEG2000). Before long, they were both on the machine, happily coexisting. It seems developers have been using non-overlapping features for a while.<br>
<br>So is it possible to put both in the standard? The "LSB backward compatible" version 8 would be libjpeg-turbo, and the new version 9 would be OpenJPEG, and perhaps there would be an SO name trick or two to help the drop-in-replacement part (ln -s /usr/lib{32,64}/libjpeg.so.8.0.2 /usr/bin/libopenjpeg.so.1.5.0).<br>
<br>After having used Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, and CentOS, I don't know of any distro that doesn't let you install both. Isn't it easier to get the distros to add one small symlink to their packages, instead of the upstream developers to change their philosophical reasoning for diverging? Or would there be ABI issues I can't see in the part libjpeg-turbo would be trying to replace?<br>
<br>--<br>Dan Harrison<br>