Fwd: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -amd64 openexr issues)

[David Southwell]

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -amd64 
openexr issues)
Date: Tuesday 16 October 2007
From: David Southwell <david at vizion2000.net>
To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill at aldan.algebra.com>

On Monday 15 October 2007 07:48:14 you wrote:
> понеділок 15 жовтень 2007 10:39 до, David Southwell Ви написали:
> > 1. Any idea how long Module support will remain broken?
>
> This is a difficult question to answer, because it depends on the exact
> configurations -- some modules are just fine, but some others mess things
> up, when ImageMagick unloads them (via dlclose())...
>
> Jasper was a bad offender in the past, but I patched it a few weeks ago.
> There, probably, remain other evil-doers :(
>
> That said, you do not need module support -- there is no gain from them.
> Adding a third-party module (if any exists at all) remains possible even if
> ImageMagick's own modules are all linked in.
>
> > ** Makefile possibly broken: graphics/ImageMagick:
> >         "Makefile", line 105: warning: OpenEXR's libIlmThread may prevent
> > PerlMagick from working
> >         "Makefile", line 108: warning: DjVu requires threads and will not
> > be supported
> >         ImageMagick-6.3.5.10_1
>
> If you rebuilt the OpenEXR recently (be sure to read /usr/ports/UPDATING
> for details), you can ignore the OpenEXR warning. For DjVu it is, probably,
> best to just disable it -- it requires threads, which often make PerlMagick
> unusable, because perl is not threaded by default on FreeBSD.

What is the situation when perl is comliled with threads? Is ImageMagick's 
Makefile intenmded to cope with that?
>
> Unless you know, you need DjVu support for something, PerlMagick is,
> probably, more important to you than DjVu...
>
> > As you can see I have two depencies not upgrading due to ImageMagick
>
> The warnings aren't supposed to trigger portupgrade's failure, but I rarely
> use the tool. There, likely, exists an option to cause it to try building
> the port regardless...

How about a patch for the makefile?
>
> Yours,
>
>  -mi

Thanks for all your help -- it is appreciated

David

-------------------------------------------------------