On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 17:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:07 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 14:33 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stephen Smoogen > > > <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 11:55, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Sérgio Basto > > > > > <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > > > > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > package > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all applications use only > > > > > > > > ImageMagick > > > > > > > > 7, > > > > > > > > we move the sources from ImageMagick7 to ImageMagick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be better to update the ImageMagick > > > > > > > package > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > 7 and create a compatibility package ImageMagick6. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone is going to review the package or not ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I already explain the situation in the other emails on this > > > > > > thread . > > > > > > > > > > > > I estimate that I will need about 200 hours to do what your > > > > > > brilliants > > > > > > minds ask . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? "200 hours"? Not a chance. Upgrading ImageMagick to > > > > > v7 > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > Patches please, Neal to help Sergio cut it down then. He is > > > > saying > > > > he needs that time to make it work for all the problems he is > > > > seeing. Your commentary and others are coming across as > > > > lambasting > > > > him when he is wanting help. While your and other comments > > > > seem > > > > clear to you.. code would be clearer. > > > > > > > > > > Sure. I've prepared a pull request for ImageMagick itself: > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ImageMagick/pull-request/10 > > > > > > And I'm preparing a COPR to rebuild the reverse dependencies and > > > work > > > through the breakages (if any): > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ngompa/ImageMagick7-dev/ > > > > I already state why I against this approach , don't forget, before > > merge this PR, you need do the compat-ImageMagick6912 or something, > > like [1] > > > > Sure, an ImageMagick6 package as a compatibility package is easy > enough to do. > > > And this will delay a lot adding ImageMagick7 to epel9 and epel8 > > > > No, it wouldn't. You could upgrade ImageMagick and add the > ImageMagick6 compat package there too and be fully compliant without > extra effort. With a lot more of time , energy , attention you can, but if you think it won't break anything you are wrong and I don't want stresses, eventually in a second phase I would do the same as you propose. I don't understand what advantages it brings do a compat ImageMagick to do a new ImageMagick version. Final statement, instead of wasting my time and energy on arguments, Imagemagick7 could already be built on rawhide if someone had done the package review for me Rest my case Best regards, -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
