Fwd: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade
failure -amd64 openexr issues)
david at vizion2000.net
Tue Oct 16 05:52:27 PDT 2007
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:55:53 David Southwell wrote:
> 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 that = the warning in regard to OpenEXR may be out of date..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
> > 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
I am now getting the following report:
** Listing the failed packages (*:skipped / !:failed)
! graphics/ImageMagick (ImageMagick-126.96.36.199) (Makefile broken)
* www/gallery2 (gallery2-2.2.3)
* multimedia/libxine (libxine-1.1.7_2)
Which seems to indicate that ImageMagick's makefile is indeed broken - I think this lends some additional support to my observation (but I would not suggest it should be seen as the last word <chuckles>
More information about the freebsd-ports