This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
- From: fedora at studio dot imagemagick dot org
- To: fedora at studio dot imagemagick dot org, huntharo at msu dot edu
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:01:23 -0800
- Subject: Re: ImageMagick/Graphicsmagick
> How many developers have you still got? There doesn't seem to be much
> evidence of other developers on the project anymore.
Clearly you have made up your mind so it seems a waste of time to answer
questions you don't really care about but here goes. We have 7 developers
mostly part time. I am the original author and full-time developer of
ImageMagick and a majority of the GraphicsMagick was written by me.
> We had a discussion on the cygwin-apps mailing list; unfortunately, the
> discussion might not have always had ImageMagick in the subject, so you
> might not be able to find all of the messages. The gist of the
I found them all.
> discussion was that, regardless of stated intentions, the way that
> ImageMagick was handling ABI version numbers was going to cause problems
> on Cygwin. Someone else can pipe in with the details if you ask again,
> but I was satisified with the results of the discussion.
GraphicsMagick has the same ABI versioning numbers as ImageMagick. ImageMagick
starts at 6 rather than 1 since previous versions of ImageMagick was at 5.
> Are we not adults capable of making our own decisions? Bob had nothing
> to do with this discussion and he has nothing to do with the fact that
> there is a problem with the way that ImageMagick is handling library
> version numbers.
Bob chimed in on your mailing list and I was responding to that message.
> Hasn't been a problem for us so far. If you want to prove us wrong,
> you'd better be prepared to submit some step-by-step examples of how to
> generate such cases and describe why the differing results are
> meaningful. Assuming that you do that, why should we care? We've only
I could submit step-by-step examples but why waste my time since you do
claim you do not care.
> had the ImageMagick package for less than a month and, quite frankly, it
> is easier to maintain the GraphicsMagick package because the build files
> don't create empty directories that I have to go back and delete by
> hand, among other things.
That's an excellant criteria for choosing a package for the entire CYGWIN
> Nope. I packaged ImageMagick, then I found GraphicsMagick and was
> convinced (by the code, not rhetoric) that it is superior for our
> purposes. I will not continue to package ImageMagick; I will only
> continue to package GraphicsMagick.
Again, you have not investigating the best solution here. You have
made up you mind based on just a few criteria and you are shoving it
down everyones throat. Given your strong statements and clear unwillingness
to discuss which project is best based on merit, don't bother replying.
I will not waste anymore of the CYGWIN community's time on a dead subject.
I will tell the CYGWIN community that ImageMagick Studio intends to
have full support of ImageMagick 5.5.7 and 5.5.8 Beta for CYGWIN and both
source and binaries will be available on