WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: libjpeg  (Read 7293 times)

Offline ^thehatsrule^

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1726
Re: libjpeg
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2009, 01:03:03 AM »
---looks like more than optimizer flags.  For lines, I compared  "vim /libjpeg.so.62.0.0.       
Hard to say that about binary data...

Quote
Quote
Essentially, this would create some redundancy in having 2 of the same libs.  Also, the loader will probably use /usr/lib first.. In this case the base library will always be used by default.
That's my understanding also. Without the extension, base is used.  With the extension /usr/local is used. 
No, that is not what I meant - the library in /usr/local will probably never be used, whether in your extension or not.

Quote
The switches build both static and shared libraries, as recommended by BLFS. I think I compiled once without switches, and it produced the apps without the libs....so that might be a possibility.  I'd like to be convinced the base libs have the same functionality, however.  When things don't work, it's hard to trace it back to the 5k squeezed from wherever in the base. 
They could be given the benefit of the doubt ;p

Unless there's some other aspect to this, but it sounds like a libjpeg-utils/progs package may be a better idea - like what Juanito hinted at (since the dynamic libs are in base, and static libs and headers are in dev extension)

Offline jpeters

  • Restricted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: libjpeg
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2009, 01:16:15 AM »
okay...I compiled  without switches, and it built without any libs (I guess it used those in base). Make test passed.  I'll resubmit.    (I'll include the help files for now). 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 03:24:28 AM by jpeters »

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10976
Re: libjpeg
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2009, 05:06:42 AM »
Quote
When things don't work, it's hard to trace it back to the 5k squeezed from wherever in the base.
Has there been something wrt jpeg?
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline Jason W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9730
Re: libjpeg-utils
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2009, 05:09:41 AM »
The extension is now libjpeg-utils:

Code: [Select]
Title: libjpeg-utils.tce
Description:    The libjpeg package contains utilities that allow compression
of image files based on the Joint Photographic Experts Group
standard. It is a "lossy" compression algorithm.
Version: 6b
Author: Maintained by the Independent JPEG Group
Original-site: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/libjpeg.html
Copying-Policy: Free
Extension_by: jpeters
Comments:       includes: cjpeg, djpeg, jpegtran, rdjpgcom, wrjpgcom 
--help files included 
Size: 156K
Current:      2009/05/12 Original



Code: [Select]
Title: libjpeg-utils.tcz
Description:    The libjpeg package contains utilities that allow compression
of image files based on the Joint Photographic Experts Group
standard. It is a "lossy" compression algorithm.
Version: 6b
Author: Maintained by the Independent JPEG Group
Original-site: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/libjpeg.html
Copying-Policy: Free
Extension_by: jpeters
Comments:       includes: cjpeg, djpeg, jpegtran, rdjpgcom, wrjpgcom 
--help files included 
Size: 176K
Current:      2009/05/12 Original



Offline jpeters

  • Restricted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: libjpeg
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2009, 09:03:34 AM »
Quote
When things don't work, it's hard to trace it back to the 5k squeezed from wherever in the base.
Has there been something wrt jpeg?

..just a gc on frugality  :)