On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Bill Janssen <bill.jans...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I think that's right, Justin. > > I just tried this: > > 1. Build libpng and libjpeg, static-only, and install to SAGE_LOCAL/ > lib/. > 2. Build Imaging-1.1.7 (after setting CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS to point > to SAGE_LOCAL), and install to SAGE_LOCAL/lib. > 3. Remove my /opt/local/lib/ directory. > > Now Image.open() and .show() work fine. > > I think this should become part of the Sage build process, if it isn't > already.
No way. Either we include libjpeg properly with Sage (and link it dynamically), or we make sure that our build machines don't have stuff in /opt that produces bad binaries. I think including libjpeg at some point is reasonable, assuming that it is legal these days. (Is it?) -- William > That way you won't wind up with "improper builds". You can > delete the PNG and JPEG libraries after building PIL, as they're now > statically linked into the PIL libraries. > > So, why not build libpng and libjpeg dynamically? Because Sage also > sets DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH (usually a bad indicator on Macs), and the > dynamic version would override the versions various system frameworks > (like ImageIO) are supposed to link against. Might it make more sense > to use DYLD_FALLBACK_LIBRARY_PATH for this purpose? > > Bill > > On Nov 13, 11:50 am, "Justin C. Walker" <jus...@mac.com> wrote: >> On Nov 13, 2011, at 09:59 , Bill Janssen wrote: >> >> > You're implying that 4.7.1 or 4.7.2 fix this issue in some way? I >> > don't see anything in the release notes which would cause me to >> > suspect that. >> >> Unless I'm still too caffeine-deprived, I think the issue is that you are >> one of the first to try the Mac OS X 10.5 binary release of 4.7, at least >> with something involving this particular library. >> >> There is no (i.e., doesn't seem to be an) issue for those who are using >> either a different binary or have built from source (at least, your >> primordial example works for me) (once I change my name to "wjanssen" :-}). >> >> This doesn't seem to be a problem in Sage that needs to be fixed. It seems >> to be a problem with one (or perhaps more than one) binary that has been >> built improperly. >> >> If someone else doesn't verify this first, I'll try to get to it tomorrow. >> >> Justin >> >> -- >> Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large >> Director >> Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's income >> ----------- >> -- >> They said it couldn't be done, but sometimes, >> it doesn't work out that way. >> - Casey Stengel >> -- > > -- > To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support > URL: http://www.sagemath.org > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
