From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 16 12:38:48 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAF816A419 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:38:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (77-99-36-42.cable.ubr04.chap.blueyonder.co.uk [77.99.36.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A79513C448 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:38:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id DCACF1CC45; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline From: David Southwell Organization: Voice and Vision To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:55:53 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200710160555.53675.david@vizion2000.net> Subject: Fwd: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -amd64 openexr issues) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:38:48 -0000 =2D--------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -am= d64=20 openexr issues) Date: Tuesday 16 October 2007 =46rom: David Southwell To: Mikhail Teterin 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 david =2D------------------------------------------------------