Hello, On 10/17/2011 08:04 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Sebastian Ramacher <s.ramac...@gmx.at> wrote: >> I'm currently preparing a fix for #632508 and have just seen that you have >> been >> working on this bug. Since 0.9.6 also suffers from #632508 I'd like to get a >> fixed 0.9.1 packaged and then I'd like to merge your changes if this is okay >> with you. > > There aren't problems with that, save for the fact that you simply > won't manage to build 0.9.1. I had started to port 0.9.1 to the newer > ImageMagick API, and that turned out to be a nightmare. I'm unsure I > have the changes left somewhere, but I had gotten to a 200-some lines > diff, and I'm not even sure it did build in the end.
I've got it to build with the changes from [1]. > You're much better off starting from 0.9.6. As far as I can > remember, updating to 0.9.6 didn't actually require changes to the > source (save updating the build-deps to the newer imagemagick > development packages). That is what I would recommend you to do. There > probably aren't changes you would have to incorporate from my > packages, but if you wish to base your upon mine, please go ahead. That would be better probably. I've just commited what I got so far and will update to the new upstream release later today or tomorrow. > BTW, I can't seem to find you in the Debian Database, so I assume > that you may need sponsoring. If such is the case, I could sponsor a > new version, if you wish. Thank you, I'd appreciate that. Kind regards [1] http://studio.imagemagick.org/pipermail/magick-bugs/2010-July/003388.html -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
