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+kde at aldan.algebra.com>

On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:24:15 you wrote:
> On вівторок 16 жовтень 2007, David Southwell wrote:
> = > How about a patch for the makefile?
>
> Which makefile? ImageMagick's or portupgrade's? The warning is legitimate
> -- older version of OpenExr /may/ interefere. It may not -- depending on
> too many circumstance to check within ImageMagick's makefile.

A few things to think about.

In response to your question maybe both but certainly I feel the ImageMagick's 
makefile should check whether the installed version of OpenEXR necessitates 
the issue of a warning. The Issue of inappropriate warnings by any port is, 
IMHO, a bug.
>
> portupgrade ought to proceed despite the warnings -- if there is no way to
> force it, that's a bug. But I do not maintain portupgrade 

I do not agree. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that installation cannot 
proceed without human interbvention. If every application issued 
inappropriate warning then would not the entire ports system grind to a halt? 
A philosophy of warn unless "test valid" is appropriate here.
> :( 
>
> = Just a further point the maintainer of OpenEXR seems to be suggesting
> that = the warning in regard to OpenEXR may be out of date.. perhaps
> ImageMagick's = Makefile needs some modification in the light of the recent
> changes to = OpenEXR..
>
> He is almost right -- the latest OpenEXR does not use threads /by default/.

The focus IMHO needs to be on  what is actually installed. not on what is 
installed by default. In my case both perl and OpenEXR are installed with 
threads. 

> But it /may/ still use them (it remains an option) and the previous version
> of OpenEXR usually does use them, because that used to be a default...
>
> Yours,
>
> 	-mi
That is what I would like to see but I am only one pebble on the beach 
<chuckles>

david

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