Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:09:26 -0700 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -amd64 openexr issues) Message-ID: <200710160609.26564.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <200710160555.53675.david@vizion2000.net> References: <200710160555.53675.david@vizion2000.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:55:53 David Southwell wrote:
> Subject: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure
> -amd64 openexr issues)
> Date: Tuesday 16 October 2007
> From: 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 legitima=
te
> > -- 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
> ImageMagick's makefile should check whether the installed version of
> OpenEXR necessitates the issue of a warning. The Issue of inappropriate
> warnings by any port is, 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
>
> I do not agree. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that installation
> cannot proceed without human interbvention. If every application issued
> inappropriate warning then would not the entire ports system grind to a
> halt? A philosophy of warn unless "test valid" is appropriate here.
>
> > :(
> >
> > =3D Just a further point the maintainer of OpenEXR seems to be suggesti=
ng
> > that =3D the warning in regard to OpenEXR may be out of date..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
> > recent changes to =3D OpenEXR..
> >
> > He is almost right -- the latest OpenEXR does not use threads /by
> > default/.
>
> The focus IMHO needs to be on =C2=A0what is actually installed. not on wh=
at is
> installed by default. In my case both perl and OpenEXR are installed with
> threads.
>
> > But it /may/ still use them (it remains an option) and the previous
> > version of OpenEXR usually does use them, because that used to be a
> > default...
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0-mi
>
> That is what I would like to see but I am only one pebble on the beach
> <chuckles>
>
> david
I am now getting the following report:
** Listing the failed packages (*:skipped / !:failed)
! graphics/ImageMagick (ImageMagick-6.3.5.10) (Makefile broken)
* www/gallery2 (gallery2-2.2.3)
* multimedia/libxine (libxine-1.1.7_2)
Which seems to indicate that ImageMagick's makefile is indeed broken - I th=
ink this lends some additional support to my observation (but I would not s=
uggest it should be seen as the last word <chuckles>
David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710160609.26564.david>