Re: MagickLib requirement

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 09/01/2013 01:39 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 1 September 2013 10:47, c.<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > On 1 Sep 2013, at 10:40, Daniel J Sebald<address@hidden>  wrote:
> >
> > > Carnë,
> > >
> > > With the following changeset:
> > >
> > > http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/ba79ba4e83ab
> > >
> > > my version of tools is just a little too old so that I get the following erros:
> > >
> > > ../../octave/libinterp/dldfcn/__magick_read__.cc: In function 'octave_value 
> > > magick_to_octave_value(const MagickLib::CompressionType&)':
> > > ../../octave/libinterp/dldfcn/__magick_read__.cc:1484:12: error: 
> > > 'LZMACompression' is not a member of 'Magick'
> > > ../../octave/libinterp/dldfcn/__magick_read__.cc:1486:12: error: 
> > > 'JPEG2000Compression' is not a member of 'Magick'
> > > ../../octave/libinterp/dldfcn/__magick_read__.cc:1488:12: error: 
> > > 'JBIG1Compression' is not a member of 'Magick'
> > > ../../octave/libinterp/dldfcn/__magick_read__.cc:1490:12: error: 
> > > 'JBIG2Compression' is not a member of 'Magick'
> > >
> > > Is Octave meant to be compilable with older versions of ImageMagick library?  
> > > I.e., create some functions like
> > >
> > > #if IMAGEMAGICVERSION<  6.6.??
> > > void LZMACompression ()
> > > {
> > >   error ("Requires ImageMagick version 6.??.?? or higher");
> > > }
> > > void JPEG2000Compression ()
> > > {
> > >   error ("Requires ImageMagick version 6.??.?? or higher");
> > > }
> > > etc.
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > Or is the expectation that ImageMagick should just be up to near the most 
> > > recent version?
>
> We can't check for versions since that would not allow to be built
> with GraphicsMagick which uses different version numbers. Also, is
> that the correct version number required by ImageMagick? I downloaded
> ImageMagick (I've been using GraphicsMagick) to find the right number
> but their NEWS file only says "No news is good news.". Their ChangeLog
> goes down to 2007 and from those types, only mentions LZMACompression
> which was added in 2010-12-17 (not sure about the release date).

Probably some time after 2010:

[sebald@ ~]$ convert --version
Version: ImageMagick 6.6.4-1 2011-11-03 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
Copyright: Copyright (C) 1999-2010 ImageMagick Studio LLC
Features: OpenMP

My GraphicsMagick version is 1.3.12-2.


>  This
> would suggest that the others are more likely disabled features (see
> the comment on the bug report for this[1] and reply there).

I'm not sure.  I downloaded the most recent stable version of 
ImageMagick and it has the following options

    { "JBIG1", JBIG1Compression, UndefinedOptionFlag, MagickFalse },
    { "JBIG2", JBIG2Compression, UndefinedOptionFlag, MagickFalse },
    { "JPEG2000", JPEG2000Compression, UndefinedOptionFlag, MagickFalse },
    { "LZMA", LZMACompression, UndefinedOptionFlag, MagickFalse },

where other classifications I see are:

DeprecateOptionFlag
ImageInfoOptionFlag
DrawInfoOptionFlag
SimpleOperatorOptionFlag
(quite a few others)

So why these are associated with "UndefinedOptionFlag", I'm not sure.


> I have googled for them anyway and found at least this post [2] from
> August 2010 reporting about it. Also, their list of constants [3]
> mentions version numbers for some of them, as early as 6.9.3 which was
> released in 2008. This would suggest they were released before that.
> How new does a feature needs to be to require a test?
>
> Isn't it bad enough that people with different quantum builds will
> read the same image differently?
[snip]
> [1] https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39913
> [2] http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16800
> [3] http://www.imagemagick.org/RMagick/doc/constants.html#CompressionType

I'm not sure how up-to-date reference [3] is.  Anyway, I've tried 
building the latest stable ImageMagick, but it requires a more recent 
version of autoconf than I have.  I could try updating, but I thought 
I'd see how this is supposed to behave first.

How new does a feature need to be?  I suppose a part of the answer 
depends on how critical the feature is and how pervasive the latest 
versions of the related software are in distribution bundles.  I'm not 
real familiar with the particular compression formats.  Are there big 
demands for JBIG1, JBIG2, JPEG2000 and LZMA?  LZMA is an offshoot of 
Lempel-Ziv I'm guessing, and the others sound like some variation of 
JPEG or some evolutionary fossils of JPEG perhaps.

Dan