bug#47315: Inkscape is missing imagemagick

[Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2115 bytes --]

I think this has already been fixed a few days ago on master. Have you tried pulling and upgrading inkscape again?

Le 22 mars 2021 06:13:57 GMT-04:00, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> a écrit :
>Hello,
>
>$ guix environment --ad-hoc inkscape
>[env]$ inkscape /tmp/guixtile.svg
>/gnu/store/7bs616gpgnmj4g5d0g88dkphd1gqbicy-inkscape-1.0.2/bin/.inkscape-real:
>error while loading shared libraries: libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6: cannot
>open shared object file: No such file or directory
>
>The same happens when I add imagemagick of imagemagick@6.9.11-48 or
>imagemagick@6.9.12-2g to the environment.
>
>But maybe the older imagemagick is not even built?
>
>$ guix build imagemagick@6.9.11-48
>/gnu/store/m794l5c82clc3xa1lkg30pr96y9a60m3-imagemagick-6.9.12-2g-doc
>/gnu/store/nnw0jnxpcf5bfaxbc3c5dkw87j13bq94-imagemagick-6.9.12-2g
>
>Notice the version mismatch!
>
>$ guix build imagemagick@6.9.11
>guix build: error: imagemagick: package not found for version 6.9.11
>
>It should work to just specify a version prefix, right?
>
>$ guix describe
>Generation 29	Mar 11 2021 12:17:47	(current)
>  guix 500189b
>    repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
>    commit: 500189b4d2f1e3a2d4ee8ab73d889e3d8ac70632
>
>This is probably due to
>commit 82e887ba48c2ba91b17aa9b6b17501e3e0ef4aef
>Author: Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net>
>Date:   Tue Mar 9 23:02:51 2021 +0100
>    gnu: imagemagick: Update to 6.9.12-2 [security fixes].
>    * gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm (imagemagick/fixed): New variable.
>    (imagemagick)[replacement]: Graft.
>
>I am not familiar with replacements, but it appears they force an
>update.
>This should not happen together with a library soname change;
>effectively,
>the result is a removal of the previous imagemagick package from Guix
>together with the addition of an unrelated new one, that cannot replace
>the previous one, but just happens to be a different program sharing
>the
>same name.
>
>So in this case, the only option is to upgrade the imagemagick package
>and to recompile all its dependents.
>
>Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2478 bytes --]