Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:55:53 -0700 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -amd64 openexr issues) Message-ID: <200710160555.53675.david@vizion2000.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=2D--------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -am= d64=20 openexr issues) Date: Tuesday 16 October 2007 =46rom: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:24:15 you wrote: > On =D0=B2=D1=96=D0=B2=D1=82=D0=BE=D1=80=D0=BE=D0=BA 16 =D0=B6=D0=BE=D0=B2= =D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=8C 2007, David Southwell wrote: > =3D > How about a patch for the makefile? > > Which makefile? ImageMagick's or portupgrade's? The warning is legitimate > -- older version of OpenExr /may/ interefere. It may not -- depending on > too many circumstance to check within ImageMagick's makefile. A few things to think about. In response to your question maybe both but certainly I feel the ImageMagic= k's=20 makefile should check whether the installed version of OpenEXR necessitates= =20 the issue of a warning. The Issue of inappropriate warnings by any port is,= =20 IMHO, a bug. > > portupgrade ought to proceed despite the warnings -- if there is no way to > force it, that's a bug. But I do not maintain portupgrade=20 I do not agree. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that installation can= not=20 proceed without human interbvention. If every application issued=20 inappropriate warning then would not the entire ports system grind to a hal= t?=20 A philosophy of warn unless "test valid" is appropriate here. > :(=20 > > =3D Just a further point the maintainer of OpenEXR seems to be suggesting > that =3D the warning in regard to OpenEXR may be out of date.. perhaps > ImageMagick's =3D Makefile needs some modification in the light of the re= cent > changes to =3D OpenEXR.. > > He is almost right -- the latest OpenEXR does not use threads /by default= /. The focus IMHO needs to be on what is actually installed. not on what is=20 installed by default. In my case both perl and OpenEXR are installed with=20 threads.=20 > But it /may/ still use them (it remains an option) and the previous versi= on > of OpenEXR usually does use them, because that used to be a default... > > Yours, > > -mi That is what I would like to see but I am only one pebble on the beach=20 <chuckles> david =2D------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710160555.53675.david>