What's the objection to linking PIL statically against libjpeg? It would remove a lot of uncertainty in the build. PIL seems to be the only place libjpeg is used.
On Nov 13, 12:44 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Bill Janssen <bill.jans...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, I think that's right, Justin. > > > I just tried this: > > > 1. Build libpng and libjpeg, static-only, and install to SAGE_LOCAL/ > > lib/. > > 2. Build Imaging-1.1.7 (after setting CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS to point > > to SAGE_LOCAL), and install to SAGE_LOCAL/lib. > > 3. Remove my /opt/local/lib/ directory. > > > Now Image.open() and .show() work fine. > > > I think this should become part of the Sage build process, if it isn't > > already. > > No way. Either we include libjpeg properly with Sage (and link it > dynamically), or we make sure that our build machines don't have stuff > in /opt that produces bad binaries. > > I think including libjpeg at some point is reasonable, assuming that > it is legal these days. (Is it?) > > -- William > > > > > > > > > > > That way you won't wind up with "improper builds". You can > > delete the PNG and JPEG libraries after building PIL, as they're now > > statically linked into the PIL libraries. > > > So, why not build libpng and libjpeg dynamically? Because Sage also > > sets DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH (usually a bad indicator on Macs), and the > > dynamic version would override the versions various system frameworks > > (like ImageIO) are supposed to link against. Might it make more sense > > to use DYLD_FALLBACK_LIBRARY_PATH for this purpose? > > > Bill > > > On Nov 13, 11:50 am, "Justin C. Walker" <jus...@mac.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 13, 2011, at 09:59 , Bill Janssen wrote: > > >> > You're implying that 4.7.1 or 4.7.2 fix this issue in some way? I > >> > don't see anything in the release notes which would cause me to > >> > suspect that. > > >> Unless I'm still too caffeine-deprived, I think the issue is that you are > >> one of the first to try the Mac OS X 10.5 binary release of 4.7, at least > >> with something involving this particular library. > > >> There is no (i.e., doesn't seem to be an) issue for those who are using > >> either a different binary or have built from source (at least, your > >> primordial example works for me) (once I change my name to "wjanssen" :-}). > > >> This doesn't seem to be a problem in Sage that needs to be fixed. It > >> seems to be a problem with one (or perhaps more than one) binary that has > >> been built improperly. > > >> If someone else doesn't verify this first, I'll try to get to it tomorrow. > > >> Justin > > >> -- > >> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large > >> Director > >> Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's income > >> ----------- > >> -- > >> They said it couldn't be done, but sometimes, > >> it doesn't work out that way. > >> - Casey Stengel > >> -- > > > -- > > To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-support > > URL:http://www.sagemath.org > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
