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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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 that = the warning in regard to OpenEXR may be out of date..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
I am now getting the following report: ** Listing the failed packages (*:skipped / !:failed) ! graphics/ImageMagick (ImageMagick-6.3.5.10) (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> David _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"