Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
I did a fresh install of cygwin today. I ran into the problem described at http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2010-08/msg00502.html (that was almost two months ago) http://cygwin.com/faq/ does not mention this issue. http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/cygwin-x-faq.html#cygX11-6.dll-missing currently says: 9.7. cygX11-6.dll not found after installation or upgrade Obsolete question Installing libXext6 and the things it depends on fixed the problem. Can someone update the FAQs until after this problem gets solved and the solution is out on all mirrors? Thanks, -- Raul -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
2010/8/18 Andy Koppe: On 18 August 2010 21:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote: On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. A I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the problem domain so that the problem is already solved. Inspired. Is there something in the water lately, which makes people on the list more aggressive than usual? It hasn't been redefined at all. It's the common way of reporting problems for a long time: http://cygwin.com/problems.html If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Are you going to volunteer to maintain a Cygwin packages bug-tracking system? Besides, thanks to the magic of mail filters, grabbing the attention of a package maintainer isn't the problem anyway. The issue is whether there's an active maintainer in the first place. Andy Yes, ImageMagick IS special. Well, I've been active on that lately, but I didn't want to maintain it. Do I really have to debug now emacs building from source. Sigh. I'm busy with other things. Volker Quetschke is officially still the maintainer. Can someone please take over maintainership and check the two problems. -- Reini Urban -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
On Aug 18 21:57, Andy Koppe wrote: On 18 August 2010 21:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote: On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. A I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the problem domain so that the problem is already solved. Inspired. Is there something in the water lately, which makes people on the list more aggressive than usual? It hasn't been redefined at all. It's the common way of reporting problems for a long time: http://cygwin.com/problems.html If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Are you going to volunteer to maintain a Cygwin packages bug-tracking system? Besides, thanks to the magic of mail filters, grabbing the attention of a package maintainer isn't the problem anyway. The issue is whether there's an active maintainer in the first place. Exactly! Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
I have now installed the packages libX11_6 and libXext6. ImageMagick's convert is now working. I suspect that the ImageMagick Cygwin package may need to be modified to make it depend on libX11_6 and libXext6. Bill -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. A I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the problem domain so that the problem is already solved. Inspired. Bill -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:32:50PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. A I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. For *you*, since you've decided to be insulting, you can actually expect less-than-mediocre handling of your problems, this being a volunteer process and human nature being what it is and all. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote: On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. A I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the problem domain so that the problem is already solved. Inspired. Is there something in the water lately, which makes people on the list more aggressive than usual? It hasn't been redefined at all. It's the common way of reporting problems for a long time: http://cygwin.com/problems.html If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Are you going to volunteer to maintain a Cygwin packages bug-tracking system? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
On 18 August 2010 21:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote: On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote: My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people. Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package. A I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre. Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the problem domain so that the problem is already solved. Inspired. Is there something in the water lately, which makes people on the list more aggressive than usual? It hasn't been redefined at all. It's the common way of reporting problems for a long time: http://cygwin.com/problems.html If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Are you going to volunteer to maintain a Cygwin packages bug-tracking system? Besides, thanks to the magic of mail filters, grabbing the attention of a package maintainer isn't the problem anyway. The issue is whether there's an active maintainer in the first place. Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
