This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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
community :-).

> 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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]