Re: Imagemagick and LZW
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:58:00 PDT Bruce Perens (bruce@pixar.com) wrote:
> > As the changes in the LZM and non-LZW versions only occur in the
> > libmagick library, what I'm planning to do is to separate the library
> > from the executables and to have two different libraries, one in the
> > free graphics without LZW and the other in non-free with LZW. The
> > packages would be:
> >
> > libmagick:
> > the non-LZW .so
> > conflicts with libmagick-lzw
> > libmagick-dev:
> > the non-LZW .a and includes
> > requires libmagick
> > libmagick-lzw:
> > the LZW .so
> > conflicts with libmagick
> > libmagick-lzw-dev:
> > the LZW .a and includes
> > requires libmagick-lzw
> > imagemagick:
> > the executables and the www pages
> > depends on libmagick or libmagick-lzw
> > depends on various graphics libraries (libjpeg, etc...)
> >
> > What do you think of this scheme ?
>
> I think you should provide a separate small library just for LZW,
> and a stub version of that library with LZW removed. Provide an
> lzw_is_available() function to let the software determine if it
> can use LZW or not.
>
> Thus, you would have these packages:
>
> imagemagick
> imagemagick-dev
> lzw1-disabled
> lzw1-enabled
>
> The lzw1 packages are probably small enough that they should include the
> -dev functionality in the runtime package.
The problem is that will mean the Debian version of imagemagick will be different from the stock imagemagick. I could suggest this approach to John (Cristy, the author of imagemagick), but in the meantime I think I'll stick with the above approach.
BTW, is this a problem if two packages provide the same library (the libmagick and libmagick-dev will provide the same lib) ?
Is a shlibs file like:
libMagick 3.7 libmagick(>=3.7) | libmagick-lzw(>=3.7)
problematic ?
Thanks.
Phil.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: