It probably should go in, but it is doing ok as a standalone extension.
It builds easily and the author can maintain his own release schedule.
-Rasmus
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Mike Robinson wrote:
>
> Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
>
> > Because it didn't work, and the ImageMagick library is absolutely
> >
Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
> Because it didn't work, and the ImageMagick library is absolutely
> horrible. Have a look at the Imlib2 extension.
>
> -Rasmus
I surprised imlib2 hasn't made it into the php source.
It is quite nice.
Perhaps its time it graduated. :)
.mike
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, [
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:14:23PM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Because it didn't work, and the ImageMagick library is absolutely
> horrible.
Unlike what software? :-)
> Have a look at the Imlib2 extension.
That's even better. Thanks!
--
Ragnar Kjørstad
Zet.no
--
PHP Development Mailing
Because it didn't work, and the ImageMagick library is absolutely
horrible. Have a look at the Imlib2 extension.
-Rasmus
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, [iso-8859-1] Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
> Hi
>
> I see there is a Image Magick module for php3 but not php4.
> Why was it removed?
>
> Is there any work in
