Imagemagick with OpenEXR support

Imagemagick with OpenEXR support

[Théo Maxime Tyburn]

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

Re: Imagemagick with OpenEXR support

[Csepp]

Théo Maxime Tyburn <theo.tyburn@gmail.com> 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?

Re: Imagemagick with OpenEXR support

[Théo Maxime Tyburn]

Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:

> Théo Maxime Tyburn <theo.tyburn@gmail.com> 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

[Csepp]

Théo Maxime Tyburn <theo.tyburn@gmail.com> writes:

> Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
>
>> Théo Maxime Tyburn <theo.tyburn@gmail.com> 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

[Théo Tyburn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1487 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 01:37 Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> wrote:

>
> Théo Maxime Tyburn <theo.tyburn@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
> >
> >> Théo Maxime Tyburn <theo.tyburn@gmail.com> 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

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2672 bytes --]