Re: Desolate Condition ==> ImageMagick 7.x requests

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 26, 2021, at 11:50, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> A counter-argument would be HEIF support (which a quick google suggests was 
> added in ImageMagick 7.0.7-22).

HEIF/HEIC support was added to the MacPorts ImageMagick (6) port in December 
2019.

https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/e4de5b81914ded3953feb1c3547df9347e070b45

Re: Desolate Condition ==> ImageMagick 7.x requests

[Richard L. Hamilton]

It looks like https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51310 
 covers quite a bit of discussion 
starting five years ago and as recent as three weeks. Someone has a private 
ImageMagick-7 port that people can use locally, if they wish (bottom comment on 
ticket). But there's room to say that a good answer isn't necessarily an easy 
one. And that something being unsatisfactory doesn't mean it's being ignored 
entirely. :-)

> On Jan 26, 2021, at 13:01, Ken Cunningham  
> wrote:
> 
> Ryan is passionate about this question, and many have attempted to force this 
> issue without success.
> 
> No doubt there are 50 closed tickets about it.
> 
> You will have to take it up directly with Ryan, as MacPorts' manager.
> 
> However, at some point, public demand must prevail.
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> On 2021-01-26, at 9:50 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> 
>> The first Bad Idea reason I imagine is if some port(s) that depend on 
>> ImageMagick don't play nice with the latest version, to the point where 
>> having them work is preferable to having ImageMagick be current.
>> 
>> A counter-argument would be HEIF support (which a quick google suggests was 
>> added in ImageMagick 7.0.7-22).
>> 
>> For a number of ports, there is the ability to have multiple versions 
>> installed at once; or rather, separate ports for different versions, using 
>> distinct pathnames, and often a way to select which is the default. 
>> Depending on difficulty, I'd wonder if that would be an option, absent a 
>> cleaner solution.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 26, 2021, at 04:00, Ken Cunningham >> > wrote:
>>> 
 For example, ImageMagick is at 7.0.10 in brew, but still at 6.9.11 in 
 ports.
>>> 
>>> For years now people have requested a 7.x version of this in 
>>> MacPorts...Ryan could probably update it in less than 5 minutes.
>>> 
>>> But there is some reason I never bothered to read through why that is a Bad 
>>> Idea.
>>> 
>>> Doesn't stop the monthly requests since as long as I've been around, though 
>>> :)
>>> 
>>> K
>> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Desolate Condition ==> ImageMagick 7.x requests

[Richard L. Hamilton]

The first Bad Idea reason I imagine is if some port(s) that depend on 
ImageMagick don't play nice with the latest version, to the point where having 
them work is preferable to having ImageMagick be current.

A counter-argument would be HEIF support (which a quick google suggests was 
added in ImageMagick 7.0.7-22).

For a number of ports, there is the ability to have multiple versions installed 
at once; or rather, separate ports for different versions, using distinct 
pathnames, and often a way to select which is the default. Depending on 
difficulty, I'd wonder if that would be an option, absent a cleaner solution.


> On Jan 26, 2021, at 04:00, Ken Cunningham  
> wrote:
> 
>> For example, ImageMagick is at 7.0.10 in brew, but still at 6.9.11 in ports.
> 
> For years now people have requested a 7.x version of this in MacPorts...Ryan 
> could probably update it in less than 5 minutes.
> 
> But there is some reason I never bothered to read through why that is a Bad 
> Idea.
> 
> Doesn't stop the monthly requests since as long as I've been around, though :)
> 
> K



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Desolate Condition ==> ImageMagick 7.x requests

[Ken Cunningham]

> For example, ImageMagick is at 7.0.10 in brew, but still at 6.9.11 in ports.

For years now people have requested a 7.x version of this in MacPorts...Ryan 
could probably update it in less than 5 minutes.

But there is some reason I never bothered to read through why that is a Bad 
Idea.

Doesn't stop the monthly requests since as long as I've been around, though :)

K