<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 December 2015 at 07:56, Maxin B. John <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maxin.john@intel.com" target="_blank">maxin.john@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":1ju" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden"> meta/recipes-core/<span class="il">jpeg</span>/<a href="http://jpeg_9a.bb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">jpeg_9a.bb</a> | 29 -------------------<br>
meta/recipes-core/<span class="il">jpeg</span>/libjpeg-turbo_8d+<a href="http://1.4.2.bb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">1.4.2.bb</a> | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++</div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>(CCing the usual suspects who will notice and care about this)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>I've just noticed that this means that when the binary packages are debian-renamed the version goes backwards: libjpeg-9a to libjpeg-8d+1.4.2. Does anyone have an opinion on either:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">1) ignore it</div><div class="gmail_extra">2) put an PE (epoch) in libjpeg-turbo</div><div class="gmail_extra">3) configure the debian renaming so the library has a different name (libjpeg-turbo, presumably)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>