On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 4:26 AM Tomáš Popela wrote:
>
> Hi Neal,
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 5:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the EOL period is further out, but I'd rather make it so that the
>> next RHEL will have ImageMagick 7 right from the beginning.
>
>
> Just to be transparent:
Hi Neal,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 5:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Yes, the EOL period is further out, but I'd rather make it so that the
> next RHEL will have ImageMagick 7 right from the beginning.
>
Just to be transparent: ImageMagick (or GraphicsMagick) won't be in RHEL 10
(or in any future
On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 11:22 -0500, PGNet Dev wrote:
>
> > As I said earlier in the thread: of the 25 reverse dependencies of
> > the
> > ImageMagick libraries, only five don't build[1].
> >
> > Further analysis indicates that dvdauthor has a patch in
> > openSUSE[2],
> > but the fix breaks
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:30 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > While that is true, *I* don't like doing that if I don't have to. I'd
> > rather try to get things fixed upstream in tandem. Upstreams tend to
> > appreciate that in my experience. :)
>
> Sure, but it tends to
Neal Gompa wrote:
> While that is true, *I* don't like doing that if I don't have to. I'd
> rather try to get things fixed upstream in tandem. Upstreams tend to
> appreciate that in my experience. :)
Sure, but it tends to be significantly more work. Upstreams need to support
several platforms at
As I said earlier in the thread: of the 25 reverse dependencies of the
ImageMagick libraries, only five don't build[1].
Further analysis indicates that dvdauthor has a patch in openSUSE[2],
but the fix breaks support for GraphicsMagick as an alternative. I
want to rework that patch so it
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 10:49 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > There are actually
> > other packages I could fix in Fedora with patches from openSUSE or
> > PLD, but they need more work to not break compatibility with building
> > with GraphicsMagick (which these packages
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 10:17 AM Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> On 12/6/22 8:31 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > There's a very important difference between September 2017 and now: we
> > know someone else already did it!
>
> Great. Good luck.
>
> > As an aside: I don't appreciate the "high horse"
Neal Gompa wrote:
> There are actually
> other packages I could fix in Fedora with patches from openSUSE or
> PLD, but they need more work to not break compatibility with building
> with GraphicsMagick (which these packages in question support), so
> using IM6 there for now is fine while that gets
On 12/6/22 8:31 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
There's a very important difference between September 2017 and now: we
know someone else already did it!
Great. Good luck.
As an aside: I don't appreciate the "high horse" comment, considering
during most of this discussion, I was doing the work and
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> On 12/5/22 5:41 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > But in general, it looks like an upgrade to ImageMagick 7 will be
> > rather easy to do.
>
> Hi Neal,
>
> I appreciate your eagerness here, but it is a little misled.
>
> Version 7 is radically
On 12/5/22 5:41 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
But in general, it looks like an upgrade to ImageMagick 7 will be
rather easy to do.
Hi Neal,
I appreciate your eagerness here, but it is a little misled.
Version 7 is radically different than version 6. Most (I don't have an exact figure)
packages in
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:57 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package with
> > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only ImageMagick 7,
> > we move the sources from ImageMagick7
On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 21:06 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:32 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > Final statement, instead of wasting my time and energy on
> > arguments,
> > Imagemagick7 could already be built on rawhide if someone had done
> > the
> > package review for me
> >
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 6:38 PM Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> * Neal Gompa [04/12/2022 22:26] :
> >
> > Smooge challenged me earlier in this conversation to provide patches
> > and effort, and I'm doing just that.
>
> Thank you for doing this, btw.
>
> Over the weekend, this became a discussion where
* Neal Gompa [04/12/2022 22:26] :
>
> Smooge challenged me earlier in this conversation to provide patches
> and effort, and I'm doing just that.
Thank you for doing this, btw.
Over the weekend, this became a discussion where none of the
participants seemed to be listening to the others and it
Dne 03. 12. 22 v 17:25 Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
with
ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only ImageMagick
On 04/12/2022 20:25, Sérgio Basto wrote:
I don't indent change /usr/bin/convert from ImageMagick6 so probably it
will /usr/bin/convert-7
Such name change is not a good idea, because /usr/bin/convert and all
other ImageMagick binaries are used in many scripts and SPECs. You must
provide
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 10:06 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:32 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> Final statement, instead of wasting my time and energy on arguments,
>> Imagemagick7 could already be built on rawhide if someone had done the
>> package review for me
>
>
> I
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 7:32 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 17:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:07 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 14:33 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stephen Smoogen
> > > >
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:32 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Final statement, instead of wasting my time and energy on arguments,
> Imagemagick7 could already be built on rawhide if someone had done the
> package review for me
>
I understand the sentiment as another person who has donated 1000s of
On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 17:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:07 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 14:33 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stephen Smoogen
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2022
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 4:35 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > You can filter out things that use ImageMagick as a build dependency
> > because that's just the command line utilities. That's why I checked
> > only the ones that use the libraries, where the API changes and
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:07 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 14:33 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stephen Smoogen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 11:55, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio
On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 14:33 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stephen Smoogen
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 11:55, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57
Neal Gompa wrote:
> You can filter out things that use ImageMagick as a build dependency
> because that's just the command line utilities. That's why I checked
> only the ones that use the libraries, where the API changes and the
> required rebuilds are needed.
How backwards-compatible is the
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 11:55, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> > > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 2:21 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:35 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 17:41 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:38 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:34 AM Kalev Lember
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:35 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new
On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 11:55, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:38 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:34 AM Kalev Lember
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> >> > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >>
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:34 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
> > > with
> > > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022, 17:26 Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
> > > with
> > > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
> > > with
> > > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
> > with
> > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only ImageMagick
> > 7,
> > we move the sources from
On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote:
The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package with
ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only ImageMagick 7,
we move the sources from ImageMagick7 to ImageMagick
I think it would be better to update the ImageMagick package
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 00:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:55 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 22:41 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 10:29 PM Sérgio Basto
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:34 -0600, Richard
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:55 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 22:41 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 10:29 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:34 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto
> >
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 22:41 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 10:29 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:34 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it's important to bring
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 10:29 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:34 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think it's important to bring ImageMagick 7 to Fedora, and it should
> have been done a long time ago .
> The
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:34 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it's important to bring ImageMagick 7 to Fedora, and it
> > should
> > have been done a long time ago .
> > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:35 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it's important to bring ImageMagick 7 to Fedora, and it should
>> have been done a long time ago .
>> The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's important to bring ImageMagick 7 to Fedora, and it should
> have been done a long time ago .
> The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package with
> ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only
Hi,
I think it's important to bring ImageMagick 7 to Fedora, and it should
have been done a long time ago .
The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package with
ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only ImageMagick 7,
we move the sources from ImageMagick7 to
46 matches
Mail list logo
