On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 17:55 +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> We didn't specifically rule on the naming, FWIW. As far as IM7
> being the
> variant package, we mostly ruled that for F27, nothing using IM in
> the
> release blocking media may require IM7. I'm personally neutral on
> how the
> files and packages are named as long as the implementation
> accomplishes
> that goal.
well, okay, fine, I guess *technically* we could make ImageMagick be
7
and have ImageMagick6 and change the requirements in every single
package that currently requires ImageMagick.
That is the point, how many package fail to build with ImageMagick7 ?
we "just" need change requires on FTBFS packages (with ImageMagick7)
But...let's not do that?
:)
--
Sérgio M. B.