Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-27 Thread Sérgio Basto
Hi, I remember a few years ago an imageMagick upgrade , we made one compat-ImageMagick693 [1] and after a few days the packages was not needed anymore . I propose do the same , do one compat-ImageMagick6.9.12 and after upgrade ImageMagick to 7 ... [1]

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-26 Thread Matthew Miller
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:47:14AM -, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Sounds as if we need to keep ImageMagick 6.x for legacy reasons as long as > it's safe to do so, but instead of switching to 7.x at some point, > switching to GraphicsMagick is at most as much work if not less, but more >

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-26 Thread Michael J Gruber
Sounds as if we need to keep ImageMagick 6.x for legacy reasons as long as it's safe to do so, but instead of switching to 7.x at some point, switching to GraphicsMagick is at most as much work if not less, but more future-proof? [Judging from the current state of upstreams which is subject to

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-25 Thread Luya Tshimbalanga
On 2021-10-15 21:38, Michael Cronenworth wrote: @Luya, apologies for not providing you with a little more knowledge of the package. It isn't a simple package to maintain. Upgrades require great, great care and lots of rebuilds and alignment with other packages on every update. @Michael,

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-15 Thread Michael Cronenworth
On 10/14/21 11:17 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: Also note that ImageMagick is in the unusual position of not actually being upgraded to the latest version. One of the first things that you'll probably want to look at is upgrading it to ImageMagick 7.x. ImageMagick 6.x is not maintained upstream as far

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-15 Thread Peter Boy
> Am 15.10.2021 um 06:17 schrieb Neal Gompa : > > you'll probably want to look at is upgrading it to ImageMagick 7.x. > ImageMagick 6.x is not maintained upstream as far as I can tell. https://imagemagick.org/index.php: "We continue to maintain the legacy release of ImageMagick, version 6, at

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-14 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:27 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:13:55AM -0400, Troy Curtis Jr wrote: > > > I will take that package because it is used by Fedora Design team for > > > conversion and some applications depend on it. > > Luya, if you'd also like some help, I'd be

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-14 Thread Matthew Miller
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:13:55AM -0400, Troy Curtis Jr wrote: > > I will take that package because it is used by Fedora Design team for > > conversion and some applications depend on it. > Luya, if you'd also like some help, I'd be happy to co-maintain this with > you. I find myself using it in

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-13 Thread Luya Tshimbalanga
On 2021-10-13 05:13, Troy Curtis Jr wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 10:14 PM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 2021-10-12 15:37, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to put out a public call for a new primary owner for > ImageMagick[1]. > > I only

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-13 Thread Troy Curtis Jr
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 10:14 PM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > On 2021-10-12 15:37, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to put out a public call for a new primary owner for > > ImageMagick[1]. > > > > I only picked it up a few years ago to prevent it from being orphaned, > >

Re: Package owner required for ImageMagick

2021-10-12 Thread Luya Tshimbalanga
On 2021-10-12 15:37, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Hi all, I would like to put out a public call for a new primary owner for ImageMagick[1]. I only picked it up a few years ago to prevent it from being orphaned, but I no longer have the desire or time to maintain it. Thanks, Michael [1]