Re: Imagemagick with OpenEXR support
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 01:37 Csepp wrote: > > Théo Maxime Tyburn writes: > > > Csepp writes: > > > >> Théo Maxime Tyburn writes: > >> > >>> ``` > >>> checking for OpenEXR >= 1.0.6... no > >>> [...] > >>> Delegate library configuration: > >>> OpenEXR --with-openexr=yes no > >>> ``` > >> > >> If we are going by semver, then 1.0.6 is incompatible with 3.x. Maybe > >> it expects an older version? > > > > Hum. But it seems to look for a version that is greater or equal > > 1.0.6. Shouldn't 3.x be matched ? Maybe I misunderstand semver. > > You mean 3.x could have incompatibilities so that is what is is not > > matched ? > > A major version bump is supposed to mean a backwards incompatible > change, so depending on how the greater-than operator works, 1.x might > not be "smaller" than 3.x. It's not a total ordering, I think it's a... > semilattice? Or something along those lines. > Ah I see. That would make sense. Though semver.org says: ``` Precedence is determined by the first difference when comparing each of these identifiers from left to right as follows: Major, minor, and patch versions are always compared numerically. Example: 1.0.0 < 2.0.0 < 2.1.0 < 2.1.1. ``` But maybe the imagemagick config also specifies a maximum version and doesn't say it out loud in the printed output. I'll have a look >
Re: Imagemagick with OpenEXR support
Théo Maxime Tyburn writes: > Csepp writes: > >> Théo Maxime Tyburn writes: >> >>> ``` >>> checking for OpenEXR >= 1.0.6... no >>> [...] >>> Delegate library configuration: >>> OpenEXR --with-openexr=yes no >>> ``` >> >> If we are going by semver, then 1.0.6 is incompatible with 3.x. Maybe >> it expects an older version? > > Hum. But it seems to look for a version that is greater or equal > 1.0.6. Shouldn't 3.x be matched ? Maybe I misunderstand semver. > You mean 3.x could have incompatibilities so that is what is is not > matched ? A major version bump is supposed to mean a backwards incompatible change, so depending on how the greater-than operator works, 1.x might not be "smaller" than 3.x. It's not a total ordering, I think it's a... semilattice? Or something along those lines.
Re: Imagemagick with OpenEXR support
Csepp writes: > Théo Maxime Tyburn writes: > >> ``` >> checking for OpenEXR >= 1.0.6... no >> [...] >> Delegate library configuration: >> OpenEXR --with-openexr=yes no >> ``` > > If we are going by semver, then 1.0.6 is incompatible with 3.x. Maybe > it expects an older version? Hum. But it seems to look for a version that is greater or equal 1.0.6. Shouldn't 3.x be matched ? Maybe I misunderstand semver. You mean 3.x could have incompatibilities so that is what is is not matched ?
Re: Imagemagick with OpenEXR support
Théo Maxime Tyburn writes: > Hi guixers, > > I am trying to add OpenEXR to the current Imagemagick. > > I tried this out > > ``` > (package > (inherit imagemagick) > (inputs (append `(("openexr" ,openexr)) (package-inputs imagemagick > ``` > > but in the configure phase: > ``` > checking for OpenEXR >= 1.0.6... no > [...] > Delegate library configuration: > OpenEXR --with-openexr=yes no > ``` > > I'm not sure why OpenEXR is not visible at configure time. There doesn't > seem to be any manual addition of references to include or lib > directories from the store in the current imagemagick package > definition. So I assume it should just work fine. > > Any idea? > > Théo If we are going by semver, then 1.0.6 is incompatible with 3.x. Maybe it expects an older version?