Vincent Legoll wrote 4 years ago
(name . Guix Patches)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
CAEwRq=ryYGBK_GM8fofe-Efy2fsp3QTBWuTzuaTgiBPerLq0rQ@mail.gmail.com
The latest 6.x is 6.9.12-0.
I dunno the status of dependents wrt 7.x.
--
Vincent Legoll
[PATCH 0/1] imagemagick: update to latest 6.x.
- Done
Details
- 2 participants
- Leo Famulari
- Vincent Legoll
- Owner
- unassigned
- Submitted by
- Vincent Legoll
- Severity
- normal
Vincent Legoll wrote 4 years ago
[PATCH] gnu: imagemagick: Update to 6.9.12-0.
(address . 46567@debbugs.gnu.org)(name . Vincent Legoll)(address . vincent.legoll@gmail.com)
20210216193243.7111-1-vincent.legoll@gmail.com
* gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm (imagemagick): Update to 6.9.12-0.
---
gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Toggle diff (23 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm b/gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm
index 02a627f17e..2ca0cfc9ea 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm
@@ -50,14 +50,14 @@
;; The 7 release series has an incompatible API, while the 6 series is still
;; maintained. Don't update to 7 until we've made sure that the ImageMagick
;; users are ready for the 7-series API.
- (version "6.9.11-48")
+ (version "6.9.12-0")
(source (origin
(method url-fetch)
(uri (string-append "mirror://imagemagick/ImageMagick-"
version ".tar.xz"))
(sha256
(base32
- "0m8nkmywkqwyrr01q7aiakj6mi4rb2psjgzv8n0x82x3s1rpfyql"))))
+ "0bdc6rn14xxlvylck9yzr0mgx5dps3pdyfsgy91wxs64ck0kaahf"))))
(build-system gnu-build-system)
(arguments
`(#:configure-flags '("--with-frozenpaths" "--without-gcc-arch"
--
2.30.0
Leo Famulari wrote 4 years ago
Re: [bug#46567] [PATCH 0/1] imagemagick: update to latest 6.x.
(name . Vincent Legoll)(address . vincent.legoll@gmail.com)(address . 46567@debbugs.gnu.org)
YCwrOD7CzNljDS7H@jasmine.lan
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 08:18:55PM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote:
Toggle quote (4 lines)
> The latest 6.x is 6.9.12-0.
>
> I dunno the status of dependents wrt 7.x.
In Guix we don't have a package of ImageMagick 7, and the upstream
developers continue supporting "legacy" ImageMagick 6. We have packaged
ImageMagick 7 in the past at least once.
Basically, if we want to use version 7, we should do some tests to
ensure that packages using ImageMagick are compatible. Unfortunately
ImageMagick uses a so-called "command-line API" so it's not simple to
check compatibility. The easiest way would be to wait for the upstream
developers of packages that use ImageMagick to announce compaitibility
(maybe some of them have already done this, I don't know).
Leo Famulari wrote 4 years ago
Re: [bug#46567] [PATCH] gnu: imagemagick: Update to 6.9.12-0.
(name . Vincent Legoll)(address . vincent.legoll@gmail.com)(address . 46567-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
YCwrrSJDfBiMRw3B@jasmine.lan
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 08:32:43PM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote:
Toggle quote (2 lines)
> * gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm (imagemagick): Update to 6.9.12-0.
Thanks! Pushed to staging as 98a41305cca3413c6d0b98e9c02caddc9138353e
Closed
Vincent Legoll wrote 4 years ago
Re: [bug#46567] [PATCH 0/1] imagemagick: update to latest 6.x.
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 46567@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAEwRq=pNrzZLiA60F02wp691y42w_9VHAfEzPnXn4FW_SRQeOQ@mail.gmail.com
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:29 PM Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
Toggle quote (14 lines)
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 08:18:55PM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote:
> > I dunno the status of dependents wrt 7.x.
>
> In Guix we don't have a package of ImageMagick 7, and the upstream
> developers continue supporting "legacy" ImageMagick 6. We have packaged
> ImageMagick 7 in the past at least once.
>
> Basically, if we want to use version 7, we should do some tests to
> ensure that packages using ImageMagick are compatible. Unfortunately
> ImageMagick uses a so-called "command-line API" so it's not simple to
> check compatibility. The easiest way would be to wait for the upstream
> developers of packages that use ImageMagick to announce compaitibility
> (maybe some of them have already done this, I don't know).
Yes, I've seen the comment, I was just trying to tell that I did not check
any dependent for 7.x compatibility.
Thanks
--
Vincent Legoll
?